Gordon Brown: In 1997, financial services earned £45 billion for the United Kingdom, and last year the figure was £94 billion—twice as much. Net exports have risen from £11 billion to £19 billion and financial services, once 6 per cent. of the economy, are now 8.5 per cent. of our economy. With the new City task force we will continue to found our policy for competitiveness on thinking globally, investing in skills, a competitive business and light-touch regulatory environment, and most of all, doing nothing to put economic stability at risk.

Andrew Love: The City is set for another bumper year of growth. That is due in no small measure to the stability and low-inflation environment of the wider economy. Will my right hon. Friend reject any unfunded tax cuts as putting that stability at risk, and what more can he do to enhance the role of the City in the world economy?

Gordon Brown: In the nine years since we came into Government, of the companies that have located either their national, regional or international headquarters, it is true to say that 398 have located in London and the United Kingdom, 63 in Paris, fewer in Germany and the Netherlands and 30 in Ireland. Opposition Members who wish to suggest that the success of Ireland is somehow comparable with the success of London should think again. London has doubled the amount of trading and financial services work. It will continue to thrive because we will think globally, but we will not put it at risk by an irresponsible funding of tax cuts that we cannot afford, and which would put at risk the very public services, infrastructure and skills on which the City and the rest of the British economy depend.

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman, who should know something about this, should look at the facts about the performance of the City and the British economy. Perhaps he might read the comments from the chairman of the New York stock exchange, who said that London is getting business for two reasons. One, it does not have the heavy touch regulatory environment of the United States of America and, two, it has proved itself to be competitive in so many areas. I contend—and the hon. Gentleman should think about this—that the stability of our economy and the future of the City of London would be put at risk by getting the balance wrong between tax, spending and borrowing. That is why we will not accept the unfunded, irresponsible and reckless commitments being made by the Conservative party.

George Osborne: What the Chancellor did not mention is that we are celebrating this week the 20th anniversary of the big bang, something that he opposed at the time but now presumably welcomes. The City is not celebrating the damage that he has done to the pensions industry with his tax and regulatory regime. Labour's first pensions Minister was the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who has said:
	"when Labour came to office we had one of the strongest pension provisions in Europe and now we...have some of the weakest".
	I know that the Chancellor does not do humility, but does he accept any blame for what has gone wrong?

Gordon Brown: It is very interesting that the shadow Chancellor has made the question of whether pensions are properly regulated in this country the central issue. The difference between us is that we want proper regulation to protect individual pensioners, whereas the Opposition have proposed a plan that would deregulate and abolish consumer protection for pensioners. Until Conservative Members look at the plans that their own group is pursuing and find out what damage would be done to the regulation of pensions, they will be living in a dream world about what their policy proposals are going to be. We will insist on the proper regulation of pensions. We have introduced compensation for people who were deprived of their pensions. We have introduced a new Pension Protection Fund board to ensure that there is proper protection for pensions. We have a new pensions Green Paper to ensure that protection. We will not do the most important thing, which unfortunately happened under the Conservative Government; we will not put the stability of the economy at risk, and that will be foremost in resisting irresponsible and unaffordable tax cuts.

Gordon Brown: When we came into office, expenditure per pupil was £2,500 in our state schools. Today, the expenditure is £4,500. It is rising—

Gordon Brown: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support what we are doing; in other words, what we are doing is—[Hon. Members: "Cuts!"] Well, we are putting the money through the employer, through the train to gain scheme. The employer and the individual will buy their courses from colleges where that is appropriate. If the college is providing the right service to the employer and the employee, it will get the business; if the college is not providing the right service, it will have to do so in future. I would have thought that was the policy of the Conservative party, but if that, too, has changed between tonight and today, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me.

John Healey: The guarantee on the duty discounts lasts for three years, and we deal with that on a rolling basis. The obligation is set at 5 per cent. until 2010-11, but we have made it clear that we want to extend it beyond that date. Another important element is the research and development tax credit, which is available to biofuels firms, just as it is to firms in other sectors. Some £1.8 billion has been claimed in R and D tax credits since we introduced them. That sort of support is absolutely vital, as Britain's capacity to compete internationally will in future depend ever more on our R and D, and on commercialising science and innovation. I can tell the hon. Lady that the prospects for the economy, the certainty that people want about biofuels, and the prospects for manufacturing, including in her constituency, would only be harmed by her party's commitment to abolish the R and D tax credit.

Bob Blizzard: In East Anglia a new bioethanol plant will shortly come on-stream, and of course we have many acres of sugar beet that can be processed into bioethanol. However, not many vehicles can use bioethanol. What discussions is my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary having with motor manufacturers to make sure that fully flex vehicles, such as those in Brazil that can run off both traditional petrol and bioethanol, are available in this country?

Edward Balls: I do agree, and I only wish that the shadow Chancellor agreed, too. We have increased employment since 1997 by 2.5 million jobs. In my hon. Friend's own constituency, unemployment has gone down by 42 per cent., youth unemployment by 62 per cent., and long-term unemployment by 84 per cent. since 1997.  [ Interruption. ] That is not good enough, however, as we still have too many people out of work on incapacity benefit, and we still have too many lone parents who want to work but cannot. The way to address that is to expand the new deal, not to abolish it.

Edward Balls: I am proud of the fact that we have more than 1 million more single parents in work because of the way in which tax credits, with the new deal, have boosted the employment prospects of those people. The employment outlook from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development states:
	"There is a group of countries"
	including the UK
	"where the policy-driven improvements in employment and unemployment over the period considered have been the most significant".
	The OECD is referring to what we have done on tax credits. Tax credits and the new deal have improved the employment prospects of single parents in our country.

Edward Leigh: Critical elections are taking place this month in the Democratic Republic of Congo. As the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) and I saw on a recent visit, it is the poorest country in the world and its civic society has all but collapsed. Will the Chancellor outline his plans—I am sure that he will have the support of the whole House—for helping the Democratic Republic of Congo with debt relief and generally increasing aid and help?

Gordon Brown: Debt relief is possible when a country has a working Government who are capable of managing its affairs. One reason why we have had problems with debt relief has been that even when the will has been there on the part of the richest countries in the world, some countries had such a broken-down system of government and history of conflict that they were unable to manage the transition, so we need to give them extra special help to do so. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are prepared to give extra help. We are prepared to put in place measures that will make it possible for the republic to benefit from debt relief. Of course, our other measures to enhance educational and health expenditure in Africa will also be put in place, but that depends on the country having a stable Government who are able to manage their affairs.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Once again, links are being developed between schools in Britain and schools in Africa, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and many other of the poorest countries. I know that the Department for International Development is very willing to help expedite those links, whether they are teacher exchanges or schools just maintaining contact with schools in Africa and the rest of the world.
	With reference to child labour, next year is the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade. One of the ways that we could commemorate that is by making people aware of the extent of child labour around the world and the use of children as slaves in that way. Over the next few months we should attempt to educate the public about the problem and do more to ensure that, instead of being in work during their early years, every child is given the proper chance of education. I want to see the 110 million children who are not in school given that chance of education over the next few years.

Edward Balls: We have made repeated reports over the past year. I made a ministerial statement to the House just a few weeks ago. We have acted regularly in recent months to strengthen our terrorism order, to use closed source evidence and to strengthen our benefits regime. As I just said, we are also acting on money laundering and money services business. Across the piece we have been acting, and at the same time we have been freezing assets of individuals regularly and substantially. I say to the hon. Gentleman and to his colleagues on the Front Bench that I accept that we will not have a consensus on the new deal, public spending cuts, tax cuts or the priority that we attach to tackling child poverty, but I would have thought that we could have had a consensus on the importance of our acting together on these issues. Frankly, we do not have that consensus because of the absurd claims that have been made by Opposition Members, which only undermine our efforts to take the terrorists to task.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of the 110 million children who are not in education, a very substantial number are in countries where the education system has completely broken down because of conflict. I believe that, as a world, we will have to consider—just as we have done for health care—how we might provide international support in the future in situations where there is conflict and there are difficulties in running a civil education service from within a country. We obviously need to provide more funds for education in the poorest countries: £8.5 billion has been put into that by the British Government over 10 years. That would be enough to get 15 million children educated—and, therefore, a very substantial number of those who are not in school into school—but we need other countries to support us. We need Canada, which has already indicated that it will support, and other countries—Germany, France, Italy, Japan and America, which are all part of the G7—to support the effort. That is why we have called the donor conference, which will be held in Brussels at the beginning of next year, and that is why I hope that all the efforts of the international aid organisations will be directed at persuading other countries to contribute to what is the only way that we can achieve the millennium development goals.

Gordon Brown: There was all-party support for my right hon. Friend's International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill, which requires the Government to prepare a report annually on the amount of spending and how it is being used. I want to see that happen at an international level, and as he knows, there is a new Commission for Africa, to be chaired by Kofi Annan, which will report back every year on how we are doing in meeting the Gleneagles agreement. That will put pressure on individual countries and international organisations, and again, I hope that there will be all-party support for it.

Ruth Kelly: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the future of local government.
	Local authorities and the services they provide in partnership with others are hugely important to the health and strength of our communities and country. They help to determine the quality of our everyday lives: the schools that our children attend, the cleanliness and safety of our neighbourhoods, the health of families, the ease with which we can travel, and the leisure activities that we enjoy. Many of the biggest social advances in recent generations were led by local government and its leaders. They have served their communities well. But in 1997, this Government inherited public services and institutions that were run-down, demoralised and starved of cash and resources. We responded with significant investment to expand capacity and by setting a strong direction nationally. Combined with the hard work and commitment of local councillors, the local government work force and other partners, this has led to real improvements in local public service delivery.
	For the next phase of reform, we need to respond to new challenges. The increasing complexity and diversity of these—from climate change to tackling deep-rooted social exclusion—demand more flexibility at local level. Moreover, expectations of citizens are rising fast. They rightly want more choice over the services that they receive, more influence over those who provide them and higher service standards.
	The White Paper that I publish today proposes that local authorities and other public service providers have the freedom and powers that they need to meet the needs of their communities and to be more clearly accountable for doing so. Communities must have a bigger say in the issues that matter to them most. We therefore propose a new settlement with local government, communities and citizens. We will give local authorities a stronger role in leading their communities and bringing services together to address local needs and problems. Central Government will play their part in guaranteeing minimum standards and setting overall national goals, but we will step back and allow more freedom and flexibility at local level. In exchange, we expect to see more accountability to local citizens, stronger local leadership, better and more efficient services and a readiness to support tougher intervention when things go wrong. The White Paper sets out how we intend to achieve this re-balancing between central government, local government and local people.
	At present, there are as many as 1,200 national targets and indicators for a local area. In future—[ Interruption.]

Ruth Kelly: We will cut that figure to 200 indicators with around 35 targets, plus statutory education and child care targets. The targets will be tailored to local needs, agreed between Government and local partners and set out in the local area agreement.
	In that way, we will focus on the things that matter to people everywhere, guaranteeing national minimum standards, but encouraging local innovation and local priorities. We will introduce a more proportionate, risk-based inspection regime to cut bureaucracy and more targeted support or intervention when things go wrong.
	Our best local authority leaders have made a huge difference to the citizens and communities that they serve. The White Paper sets out measures to ensure that all communities benefit from strong, accountable and visible leadership.
	In future, there will be three choices for councils: a directly elected mayor, a directly elected executive of councillors or a leader elected by fellow councillors with a clear four-year mandate. All the executive powers of local authorities will be vested in the leader of the council, with a strong role for the council to scrutinise the leader's actions and approve the budget and major plans.
	The way in which councils choose to govern themselves will be different in different parts of the country. We will make it easier for local authorities to move to a directly elected mayor or executive by resolution of the council, in consultation with local people. When they want to do so, they will also be able to introduce whole-council elections and single-member wards, improving accountability to voters.
	We recognise the gains that unitary status can offer in accountable, strategic leadership and improved efficiency. There will be a short window of opportunity for councils in shire areas to seek unitary status. We expect a small number of proposals to meet the value-for-money and other criteria set out in the invitation that we have issued today. In remaining two-tier areas, we will work with local authorities to deliver better value for money and greater efficiency.
	Stronger leadership works best if balanced by citizens and communities having a bigger say in the quality of the services that they receive and the places where they live. To ensure that services are more accountable, responsive and efficient, local authorities will involve and consult service users more fully and provide better information about standards in their local area. In addition, we will review barriers and incentives to increased community ownership and management of local facilities and other assets.
	We will increase and strengthen the powers of local people to demand answers and action through a new community call for action. Councillors should be champions for their local community, able to speak out on all issues affecting their area, including planning and licensing. They should be able to sort out issues on the ground or demand a formal response through scrutiny procedures. Effective scrutiny by councillors is an essential part of robust local democracy. We will strengthen it.
	Communities need strategic leadership to help bring local partners, the business sector and the voluntary and community sectors together. Issues such as community safety, public health or community cohesion require all local partners to share the same agenda. Our best local authorities already recognise this—and their citizens and communities benefit as a result. Our proposals will ensure that that happens throughout the country.
	Sir Michael Lyons described the "place-shaping" role of local authorities in his report in May. I pay tribute to his work so far. The proposals before the House today provide a clear basis for Sir Michael's future conclusions on local government funding.
	Cities play an increasingly important role as engines of economic growth. In recent years, there has been a renaissance in our towns and cities, thanks to the vision and leadership of local authorities and their partners. However, we need to go further. We must look beyond city and town boundaries to consider the success and prosperity of the surrounding area. Over recent months, we have consulted our towns and cities on the tools and powers that they need for economic development. There is no "one size fits all". The White Paper provides a response to issues raised by towns and cities on transport, skills, economic development and co-operation between neighbouring local authorities. We will continue to work with them in the coming months. Our clear, overriding principle is that the greater the powers devolved, the greater the premium on clear, visible leadership.
	None of our reforms can be carried out without a strong and committed work force. Local government contains many high quality councillors and public servants. It has transformed our towns and cities and, in many areas, it leads public services in partnership working, innovation and efficiency.
	Our reforms will give citizens and communities a clearer voice, create stronger and more visible leadership and establish a new settlement with local government and its partners, communities and citizens.
	The White Paper is about creating better services and better places. It sets out the tools that will help all local areas tackle the challenges of the 21st century, capture the strength and talents of their citizens and communities and achieve their full potential. I commend it to the House.

Caroline Spelman: I thank the right hon. Lady for letting me have a copy of the White Paper in advance. I have had just enough time to check the number of pages and the price tag, which is £32.50—at least it is two for the price of one.
	I shall begin on a note of consensus. I agreed with the right hon. Lady, when she said that local government is in much better shape since 1997. The reason for that is that the Conservative party is now the largest party in local government and Labour councillors are an endangered species.
	The White Paper prompts many questions, and the logical place to start is on the timing, which is extraordinary. The White Paper comes barely a month before the Lyons review into local government and ahead of the Barker review into planning. How can a local government White Paper mean anything, if it does not deal with finance? Does the Secretary of State agree that the function and finance of local government are two sides of the same coin? If she agrees, will she accept that without the financial dimension, the White Paper is incapable of addressing the real concerns of people outside Westminster? The true test of this White Paper is not whether it delivers enough localist soundbites; the test is whether it will deliver tangible changes for the majority of people, who are not interested in the machinery of local government or its incomprehensible jargon.
	I want to ask the Secretary of State about the things that really matter to people who receive services from their councils. What will the White Paper do for those people who are worried about how they will pay for care in old age? What will it do for people who are struggling to pay council tax, which has soared for most people by 84 per cent. under Labour? And what will it do for people who desperately want to have a say about where new housing goes and the character of their neighbourhood? The answer, I fear, is precisely nothing.
	The White Paper is toothless, because it is a series of compromises and halfway houses. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the rhetoric on localism will be treated with scepticism, because of the poisoned chalice that she received from her predecessor's obsession with regions? Month by month, more power and money is going to regional quangos, bypassing local councils. Until unelected regional assemblies are abolished and powers are returned to elected local councils, those localist pledges are not worth the paper on which they are written.
	There are, of course, things in the White Paper with which we agree, because they are harmless. We warmly welcome the decision to cut the number of directives from Whitehall to councils from 1,200 to 200, but we will carefully monitor what that means in practice. It will be good to see power devolved to parish councils to pass byelaws, but where will the resources come from to enforce those byelaws?
	What worries me about the White Paper is the level of compromise, which is the symptom of a party that is unsure of its direction. Does the Secretary of State agree that empowering council leaders is a fudge between the Prime Minister's stated preference for directly elected mayors and the Chancellor's opposition to them? And will the White Paper delay legislation on new powers for the Mayor of London?
	Is not the reduction in the number of performance targets an admission of Government failure? The inspection regimes imposed by the Local Government Acts 1999, 2000 and 2003 were a mistake. Are not city regions just a muddled and ill-defined hybrid between a failing regional agenda and real local autonomy? And how does that fit with the powers enjoyed by the regional development agencies? Is not talk of the business case for unitaries just a strained bridge between the original big idea of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is characterised by the headline "Restructure or else", and the more realistic description by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government of restructuring as "a distraction"?
	Does the Secretary of State feel embarrassed because the Prime Minister charged her in an open letter with the need for a radical and devolutionary White Paper, which her own Department now describes as
	"more evolutionary than shock and awe"?
	Restructuring was in, and now it is out. Elected mayors were in, and now they are out. Targets were in, and now they are out. That is not progress or radicalism; it is the politics of the hokey-cokey.
	While the Government chop and change, the real opportunity to improve people's quality of life is being missed. That is the tragedy of the White Paper. It provides not a crumb of comfort to people worrying about how to pay for their mum's care home costs. Is not it the case that people who are already scrimping and saving to meet their council tax bills will find nothing in the White Paper to help them? Will not those who want to have a say on the scale and shape of new development in their community still find their views ignored?
	The White Paper is a wasted opportunity by a Government who have squandered their third term. A few pious platitudes and a bonfire of past Labour mistakes are no substitute for policy. The right hon. Lady must do better. Councils are straining to be set free. She should not be so timid. She should give freedoms back to local government and local people.

Ruth Kelly: For a moment, I thought that the hon. Lady might have welcomed the Government's proposals to recast the relationship between central Government and local government. I am disappointed that she did not choose to agree with the Tory chair of the Local Government Association, who, this morning, with his colleagues, described the forthcoming White Paper as
	"heralding a historic deal on devolution in England for local people and those who serve them."
	I shall deal with each of the hon. Lady's comments. It is welcome that she has not chosen to dispute the fact that the Government have significantly increased investment in local public services by almost 40 per cent. in real terms over the past nine years. Nor did she choose to dispute the fact that the quality and delivery of public services has increased over that period, that local government performance has improved, or that two thirds of local councils are now judged by the Audit Commission to be good or excellent. At least she recognises the role that local government can play in the future. In fact, her party's recognition of the importance of local government is long overdue. Only recently, one of her colleagues confessed that
	"it is true to say that the last Conservative government was not always kind to local democracy."
	It is a pleasant change to hear some words of substance from her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I could not agree more with his comments.
	The hon. Lady made a point about the timing of the local government White Paper. She argued that we cannot consider giving more powers to local government, giving it more flexibility over the use of its resources, or slashing targets for local areas from 1,200 to 200, without at the same time reopening the debate and considering proposals on local government finance. It is a bit rich for her and her party to lecture us about the council tax. Most people would agree that it is right to think about what local government does before we think about how we raise finance. As the hon. Lady also knows, Sir Michael Lyons will consider local government finance in his independent report and make recommendations later in the year.
	To argue that the White Paper is a damp squib that does nothing for local people, however, is completely and utterly wrong. The White Paper slashes targets, and moves to a new inspection regime, away from a rolling programme everywhere to proportionate, targeted, risk-based inspection. It is devolutionary on byelaws, on which the hon. Lady has changed her mind just this morning. It is devolutionary on single- member wards, all-out elections, parish councils and, yes, the standards regime for local councillors. It gives new flexibility over funding— [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) will listen for a moment, he will learn that, currently, £520 million flows through the local area agreement. In future, the figure could be up to £4.7 billion.
	The hon. Lady asked about city regions and the regional agenda. What matters to us is not trying to scrape together £21 billion of unfunded tax cuts, but securing the right powers at the right levels. That is why we consider these issues seriously. The hon. Lady argues for more devolution in housing. We know what Tory devolution means: it means not building the homes that people need.
	The White Paper sets out a Labour view of devolution. It means central Government and local government working together to set minimum standards, but also to deliver local services, better places, more involved citizens and more prosperous local communities. Our proposals stand in stark contrast to the legacy of neglect and cuts that we inherited from the Conservative party. We now know what Tory devolution means: not fairness for all, but a free-for-all.

Andrew Stunell: The Liberal Democrats welcome the White Paper, and I am pleased that the Secretary of State came to the House to make her statement. Nevertheless, the White Paper represents a significant missed opportunity.
	Does the Secretary of State share our view that local communities are too often cut out of decision-making—that they are too often forced to accept the standards and prescriptions of central Government, and that their voice is not being heard? Does she agree that public alienation, anger and apathy are all fuelled by a sense of disconnection from local government and from decision-making? Despite all her head-scratching, the White Paper does not convince me that she agrees with that analysis.
	The White Paper does not propose the fair votes that are essential for democratic renewal. It does not propose abolition of the council tax and the introduction of a fair tax based on ability to pay. It will not return the business rate to the control of local government, which is essential to freedom of decision-making. Perhaps above all, it will not return the powers and the billions of pounds that central Government and quangos hold on behalf of local government, which prevents local government from making decisions. Sadly, much of what it does propose has more to do with administrative convenience than with democratic accountability. It has more to do with the fleeting fashions in No. 10 than with community engagement.
	Whatever persuaded the Secretary of State to cut out community choice from the executive mayoral system? After 34 referendums and 22 rejections, with only 12 mayors accepted by the public and with four of the 12 who have been voted into office facing recall action by outraged local communities, could it just be that the Prime Minister went to the Secretary of State and said "We do not want local choice on mayoral executives: just get on with it"? Does that not make a complete mockery of the Secretary of State's mantra about community choice? The only choice that the public did have and the only choice that they were exercising—to say "We do not want mayors"—is to be taken away from them.
	In the media this morning, I heard the Secretary of State make much of the new powers for councils, parish and district, to make byelaws. That is good, but I wonder whether she has noted that they already have those powers under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.
	There are some genuinely good things in the White Paper. The proposal to reform the Standards Board and its code is long overdue. The only point that I would make is that the Secretary of State could have done it without a White Paper, months and months ago. We also welcome the restoration of local councillors' right to defend their local communities when planning and licensing decisions are made. We agree with the Secretary of State that the current rules are absurd and grossly anti-democratic. Will she undertake to bolt that provision on to some piece of legislation—any piece of legislation—very soon, and to bring back common sense before the new year?
	Councils are to be invited to volunteer to convert to unitary status. How will the Secretary of State judge who volunteered and who was bounced? Will the public have a voice in the changes? Does she expect them to cost more money? If she feels the need to cap expenditure and the number of people involved—which I understand is proposed in the White Paper—and if, as I suspect, the local community will not be asked to endorse the changes, what exactly will be her criteria for approving them?
	One of the most talked-up parts of the White Paper was the part relating to city regions. My question to the Secretary of State is simple: what happened to it? If the mayors are in because of No 10, city regions seem to be out because of No. 11. What exactly has the city regions project to do with the Treasury, and how has the Secretary of State let the Treasury get its hands on it?
	The Liberal Democrats look forward to helping the Government to improve the White Paper drastically and dramatically, and to restore and rebuild local democracy. We await the Secretary of State's answers with interest.

Ruth Kelly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We should leave local government the space and flexibility it needs to deal with complex issues of concern to local citizens and communities. The hon. Gentleman is right: we should fund any new burdens and we have a principle in place under which we will give funding to local authorities for any new burden imposed by the Government. He is also right that the inspection regime will change. It will become risk based and proportionate, but on the 35 targets that we expect to be delivered at local level, we will have a tougher underperformance regime, because as part of this package of proposals and the deal with local government, we expect those minimum standards to be delivered.

David Curry: It is good to have a White Paper with the subtitle "repentance" that includes, not least, the dismantling to some extent of the new gendarmerie of control and inspection put together by this Government. But the White Paper is still a series of unresolved conflicts, as it is bound to be before we get the Lyons report and in the Blair/Brown interregnum. The White Paper is like a visit to a tapas bar, with a lot of little snacks, all of which are reasonably agreeable, but no decent meal in sight.
	If city regions are central to the Government's thinking—as they should be—are the Government willing to restructure some of the existing regional and sub-regional bodies, such as the learning and skills councils, the regional development agencies and the planning structures so that real levers of influence can be given to the city regions to influence their own fates and improve the lot of their citizens, especially in transport and skills, which are the crucial issues?

Ruth Kelly: Of course what we need is a balanced diet, not indigestion. The White Paper sets out sensible proposals and is not subtitled "repentance". The story so far is of improved local public service standards and an increased capacity in local government. The reason we have achieved that increase in standards is the central drive from Government, for instance with the literacy and numeracy hours from the Department for Education and Skills and the decent homes programme, which is putting right £19 billion of under-investment and backlog that we inherited in 1997. That is why we are in a position to devolve more and, as I have argued in the past, we have now reached a tipping point at which local government can take on more responsibilities.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks specifically about city regions. The White Paper proposes employment and skills boards and city development companies in cities that want them. It will set out the clear principle that the more powers to be devolved, the greater the premium on transparent, visible leadership. The Leech review is looking at skills and the Eddington review is looking across the board at transport, and we will come back with specific proposals for each city.

Bernard Jenkin: The Secretary of State spoke about listening to local people, but I remind her of the result of the north-east referendum. It emphatically rejected regionalism by a staggering seven to one majority on a nearly 50 per cent. turnout. Does she believe that unelected regional assemblies will be more popular than elected ones? Will she include in her proposals provisions for referendums in all the regions of England, so that local people can decide whether they want to keep unelected regional assemblies, or whether the want they want the powers to be returned to local authorities, where they belong?

Ruth Kelly: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with fellow councillors up and down the country who are this morning welcoming the proposals set out in the White Paper. Indeed, Lord Bruce-Lockhart, the Tory chairman of the Local Government Association, called the cutting of targets "great news". The hon. Gentleman asked what specific powers there would be. I would have thought that the opportunity to set byelaws at local level to deal with street nuisance, which people really care about, was a huge devolution of power from the centre. Councils will not have to drag those cautioned for an offence through the magistrates court, but will have to the opportunity to issue a fixed penalty notice. He asked what the community call for action was. It is the opportunity, as I have just outlined to my hon. Friends, for a community or individual, through their ward councillor, to have their complaint or issue properly examined, responded to and taken into account at whole-council level.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for his business statement. He read out a list of those subjects that will be included in the Business of the House motion on 1 November. Does he expect anything to be added to that list and, if so, what?
	Last week, when pressed for a debate on Iraq, the right hon. Gentleman said in so many words that it was up to the Opposition. For example, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), he said:
	"there will be a five-day debate on the Queen's Speech. It is a matter for the Opposition, and not for us, but I hope very much that one of those days will be used for foreign policy."—[ Official Report, 19 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 1022.]
	I can confirm to the House that we will indeed be setting aside one whole day of the Queen's Speech debate for foreign policy and defence matters. So we are playing our part. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Foreign Secretary will be available for that debate?
	I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was willing to come and make a statement today on her local government White Paper, but inserting that statement into today's business means that today's international development debate will be squeezed, possibly to only an hour and a half. I ask the Leader of the House to consider redressing that balance in the future, with a longer debate on international development.
	On Tuesday, the Home Secretary issued a written statement about access controls for those coming from Romania and Bulgaria. He did not make an oral statement, which meant that he could not be questioned about the Government's policy. But then it does seem to be the case that the Home Secretary is a little reluctant to answer questions in the House. On Monday, Home Office questions covered prisons, asylum applications, detection of rape, reoffending and police pay. Did the Home Secretary answer any of those questions? No. But he did answer two questions on mini-motorbikes and gopeds. So will the Home Secretary come to the House and make a statement on the operation of the Home Office so that Members of the House can question him on his policies and his running of the Home Office?
	The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation will soon make a decision on the use of the new cervical cancer vaccine. When that decision is clear, will the Health Secretary make a statement to the House on the Government's policy on the use of that vaccine?
	May we have a debate on nursery provision? Government guidance means that nurseries cannot charge top-up fees, which means that many private nurseries will probably close, which will cut the availability of child care. We need a debate so that the Government can explain how they can claim to be interested in increasing child care when their policies will cut provision?
	The Prime Minister has frequently spoken about the need to address climate change. Indeed, recently he told his European Union counterparts:
	"We have a window of only 10-15 years to take the steps we need to avoid crossing catastrophic tipping points."
	On 17 October, the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford university published a document entitled "Predict and Decide: Aviation, Climate Change and Policy". The leader of the project, Dr. Brenda Boardman said:
	"Unless the rate of growth in flights is curbed, the UK cannot fulfil its commitments on climate change."
	Yet the very next day the Department for Transport issued a document on railway closures, in which it said:
	"Where long distance travel might be affected by a closure proposal, domestic air services may also be a relevant alternative."
	May we therefore have a debate in which the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Transport are brought to the House to explain the contradiction that is occurring in Government policy? Or maybe we should simply leave it to the Foreign Secretary, who of course was talking about climate change earlier this week at the very same time as the Deputy Prime Minister was travelling around the far east doing the Foreign Secretary's job. Today, the Chancellor is doing the Culture Secretary's job by talking about competitive sport, although, given the drubbing that the Chancellor was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) in Treasury questions this morning, I suspect that the Chancellor will not be quite so interested in competitive sport in the future. So may we have a statement on ministerial responsibilities?

Jack Straw: I take the right hon. Lady's point and the comment of the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). The right hon. Lady will be aware of my concern about the slightly eccentric allocation of scheduled Adjournment debates on the Floor of the House; some subjects often come up, while others—for example, foreign policy and international development—do not have a regular slot. That will be discussed in the Modernisation Committee and I hope that, within the available time, we shall be able to come to a more rational, sensible and agreed balance on those subject debates.
	On access controls in respect of Bulgaria and Romania, I think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been forthcoming in making oral statements. The written ministerial statement was listed in the Order Paper, as it had to be, when my right hon. Friend made the announcement about Bulgaria and Romania earlier this week. We introduced the WMS procedure so that Members have far better notice than the old planted parliamentary questions. That is the whole point of having written ministerial statements. If Members spot a WMS that they think should be turned into an urgent question, it is open to them to seek the permission of Mr. Speaker.
	I shall pass the concerns of the shadow Leader of the House about the vaccination recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to make a statement—probably written, unless she has some other opportunity to do so.
	The shadow Leader of the House made some points about child care. If I was a Conservative, I should keep extremely quiet about child care because of the Conservatives' utterly lamentable record on it when they were in office and their current plans to cut £21 billion from public spending, which would hit child care as much as anything else. I remind the right hon. Lady of something that I am surprised she did not celebrate: over the last nine years, we have introduced 1.2 million new child care places and more than 1,100 new neighbourhood nurseries, with free part-time nursery places for every three and four-year-old. My constituency is typical; there has been a revolution in child care based on that increased investment, Sure Start and, above all, the family tax credits that help mothers to go back to work.
	The right hon. Lady made a very eccentric point about railway closures, because we have been opening new railway systems. There has been a 44 per cent. increase in the number of individuals travelling by train and a similar increase in the amount of freight. Only this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that more than £400 million would be invested in the next stage of the tram system in Nottingham, with extensions to Chilwell, Beeston and Clifton.

David Heath: Last week, I asked the Leader of the House if we could have a debate on the fiasco of the Rural Payments Agency, so this week, I shall ask him if we can have a debate on the consequences of that fiasco in terms of the £200 million-worth of budget cuts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which will affect flood management, environmental protection, veterinary laboratories, Natural England, British Waterways—a long list of exactly the issues that the Prime Minister says are a priority for the Government. May we have a debate on how that was allowed to happen?
	While we are on environmental issues, I echo the view of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that there should be a debate on transport. During the lifetime of the Government, traffic levels have risen by 11 per cent. Since 1990, carbon dioxide emissions from traffic have gone up by 10 per cent. to 32 million tonnes. When the Deputy Prime Minister was in charge of those things, he had a five-year plan, although of course it did not work. Now, he no longer has a five-year plan about anything, but we should have a strategy for dealing with road transport. It is not very obvious what that strategy is at present, so may we have a debate on it?
	I return again to the issue of Iraq. As the Leader of the House knows, I have asked regularly—almost every other week during this Parliament—for Government time to debate what is happening in Iraq. It is not good enough to rely on Opposition days for such debates or, indeed, on the day in the Queen's Speech debates that is normally reserved for foreign affairs and defence matters across the whole world—that offers a panoramic view of our responsibilities rather than a focused debate about what is happening in Iraq. Given that the world view of events in Iraq is changing rapidly, it is simply not acceptable for British policy and strategy to be based on the short-term requirements of the United States mid-term elections rather than a British assessment of our interests and the interests of our armed forces. May we have that debate in Government time and, if necessary, can we delay Prorogation or have an extra day of debate on the Queen's Speech so that we have an opportunity to do justice to the matter?
	Lastly, may we have a debate on the Department of Health's useful advice to health service chief executives, displayed on its intranet, that they should
	"go in and out of different doors of the building every day for a month"
	and
	"say hello to three people each time"?
	Can we know whether they should do that before or after issuing the press release about the latest hospital closure?

Siobhain McDonagh: Will my right hon. Friend find time to provide a debate on the treatment of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Webster, who have severe learning and physical difficulties, by G. E. Money, the US company which, in the last quarter, reported a profit of $5 million? The company is trying to evict my constituents from the home in which they have lived for more than 20 years, because they have fallen behind on a loan that they arranged in 1997—of only £10,000—with an astonishing interest rate of 21.9 per cent. G. E. Money has taken advantage of them, and it should act in accordance with its stated intention on its website of
	"working with integrity and values".
	Can we have a debate about social responsibility, and what integrity means to big business?

Jack Straw: I will certainly do everything that I can to facilitate an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate on that important issue, and I will pass on my hon. Friend's concerns, which are widely shared across the House, to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My hon. Friend may wish to invite the company's chief executive to the House to explain its policies, because G. E. Money claims to be a company of high status and high standing.

Mark Pritchard: May we have an urgent debate on the reason why seven beds have been cut from ward 4—the acute medicines ward—at the Princess Royal hospital in my constituency? Before the Leader of the House says something about human resources at the hospital, may I give him an up-to-date briefing? Some 200 nurses and doctors are due to be cut as well.

David Taylor: In the light of successive leaks over the past two weeks of the Opposition's policies on taxation and now public sector vouchers, I am surprised that the Conservatives have not called for a debate on internet security. However, may I raise the question of the Leicestershire charity, Inter Care, which collects surplus medicines, screens them professionally to check that they are not out of date or damaged, and distributes them on request to rural villages, particularly in central Africa? The Environment Agency alleges that there is a technical breach of EU waste disposal regulations, and its threat to sue has resulted in Inter Care closing down. Can we have a statement from a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to explain why that ludicrous and over-zealous interpretation of EU waste regulations has denied vital medical supplies to 94 villages in seven African countries that are among the poorest on the planet? Is it not more important to address the health care needs of thousands of African villages than to feed the self-importance of the bloated ranks of EU bureaucrats?

Si�n James: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on child pornography? I recently received a letter from the PICT union, which is based in Japan. My staff and I were horrified by the hard-core child pornography cartoons and the list of websites that allow access to child porn that it enclosed. I wrote to the Home Office about the matter, and I received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), who provided me with advice and support. The material has been passed to the police; but may we have debate about child pornography so that we can combat the distribution of such material and its accessibility on the internet?

Nigel Dodds: May we have a statement or a debate soon on the decision by the Northern Ireland Office to withdraw planning notices from the three main Northern Ireland newspapersthe  Belfast Telegraph, the  Belfast Newsand  The Irish News? Ordinary people in Northern Ireland will be deprived of information about forthcoming planning applications, including major applications, that will have an impact on them. That is a scandalous lack of transparency and openness, so the papers have taken legal action. The Government's approach of preventing the public from finding out about major planning applications is not right, as there should be as much openness and transparency as possible. Can the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we have a debate on that important subject?

George Young: Can the Leader of the House shed some light on what is going to happen next Wednesday? Exactly how many separate motions relating to the House of Commons will there be on the Order Paper? Does he agree that most of the subjects are totally discreteSeptember sittings, length of speeches, European scrutiny and the sub judice rule? Does he envisage one mega-debate that will try to embrace all that, or will we have a series of structured debates with votes at the end of each one?

Jack Straw: The whole House shares the hon. Gentleman's support and admiration for our troops in Afghanistan and other theatres. However, I happened, by chance, to see the report on the BBC to which he referred. I though that the report was good and informative, and it was important to see the nature of those people. The difference is that in Taliban-controlled territory, anyone who steps out of line is killed, but we are a democracy, and we are fighting for democracy in Afghanistan. Although I am happy to pass on the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the director-general of the BBC, I do so in the context that the strengths of the BBC include its independence of journalism and the fact that it is not influenced directly, especially by Ministers and hon. Members.

Jack Straw: I do not wish to be tempted down the road of nominating pilots because there is quite a lot of competition for poorly drafted Acts [Interruption.] Such Acts have been produced under all Governments. I have met the chairman of the Law Commission and I am grateful to him and his colleagues, who include a retired first parliamentary counsel, for their work on the important report, which we are considering carefully. As the parliamentary counsel recognise, the quality of legislation can be improved not only by going for more pre-legislative scrutiny, as we have done, but by learning lessons from both elegantly drafted and well thought through legislation, and measures that are not quite in that category.

Gregory Campbell: Given the number of recent high profile court cases in Northern Ireland where relatives of victims have justifiably demanded that the scrapping of 50 per cent. remission in sentences where those who are convicted of extremely serious and vicious crime should be reviewed, and given that a Northern Ireland Office Minister is already conducting a review of that, can we have a debate at an early opportunity to discuss the matter, which is causing widespread concern right across Northern Ireland?

Michael Penning: Earlier, the Leader of the House said how proud he was of the way the NHS has been handled by the Government. That means that he is happy with the decision that is taking place which will result in West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust board closing the Hemel Hempstead hospital. All acute services will close and 750 jobs will go, including those of doctors and nurses. May we have a debate in the House entitled The worst year ever in the NHS, rather than the laughable comment from the Secretary of State for Health, the best year ever?

Philip Hollobone: In a recent poll of 800 of its readers, the Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph discovered that 88 per cent. were in favour of a ban on the retail sale of fireworks, given the injuries caused, especially to children, the alarm caused to animals and the use of fireworks in antisocial behaviour. Can we have an urgent debate in Government time on the possibility of banning the retail sale of fireworks?

David Heath: It is a pleasure to return to the discussions on the Bill, which seem to have taken place some time ago in Committee. I hope everyone's recollections of the Committee stage are as clear as mine. I shall not delay the House long on either group of amendments, as we had a constructive debate in Committee. We went about our business then with considerable expedition and I see no reason to prolong our debate today.
	However, I wanted to give the Solicitor-General the opportunity to consider again the abolition of the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud. There is a great deal of commonality in the views of all parties on the subject. We all agree that the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud is probably not one that should be maintained. We hope that the provisions of the Bill will meet the needs of successful prosecutions in a wide context. Irrespective of our starting point on the need to abolish the conspiracy offence, we acknowledge that proper reservations have been expressed, not least by Lord Justice Rose's Committee, so we should take account of the proper operation of the Bill when it becomes law before proceeding with abolition.
	That much is common ground. We heard from the Solicitor-General in Committee the approach that prosecutors will take in deciding whether to use the new offences or the old conspiracy offence. The Solicitor-General told us that the draft guidance will state:
	In selecting charges in fraud cases, the prosecutor should first consider whether the behaviour could be prosecuted under statutewhether under the Fraud Act 2006 or another Act or as a statutory conspiracy;
	and further,
	whether the available statutory charges adequately reflect the gravity of the offence.[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 20 June 2006; c. 73.]
	So the guidance to prosecutors is that they should use statute law wherever possible, and only when that possibility is exhausted, proceed to conspiracy to defraud, with its slightly nebulous nature.
	Some of us have concerns not only because of the nature of the common law offence, but because of its knock-on effects. I raised those concerns in Committee, and they have become even more pertinent, although I shall not dwell on issues of controversy in recent days. It is a matter of concern when, for example, the common law offence could form part of the criteria for dual criminality in more than one jurisdiction and therefore be a proper ground for extradition. That is something that we need to at least be aware of in respect of whether to allow the common law offence to continue.
	However, I propose today not to disagree with the Government position, and to accept that there will be a review that will be concluded in three years and that the Government will then decide whether it is appropriate to abolish the common law offence. I simply sayI made this point in Committee, but I repeat it nowthat it would be better to have the provision on the statute book in advance, by means of my new clause and the commencement amendment that accompanies it. They make it clear that the provision will not take effect until the review has been concluded, and even then not within a three-year period, so the period that the Government have in mind will be protected. That would provide the legislative support for the position that the Government wish to take.
	The alternative is that the Government will have to come back with new lawwith a new Billafter the review has taken place. That might or might not find parliamentary time, and it might or might not be tacked on to some other measure that could be considerably less popular, and in any case that will take parliamentary timeunnecessarily.
	My proposal offers a better way of doing our business, given that we have a clear joint intention in respect of this issue. The control would lie with the Minister. He would not have to continue with commencement if the advice from the review is that he should not do so. The only argument against is what the Minister said in Committee, which is that this somehow puts the sword of Damocles over the offence, and that therefore there is a discouragement to prosecutors to use it, even when it is the most appropriate offence to use.
	I cannot accept that: I cannot accept that there is a difference in kind between my new clause and its commencement amendment and the Government's clear intention, stated in terms, that
	it remains our long-term aim to repeal this common law crime and we will review the position.
	There is no difference between the two positions, other than that one of them saves parliamentary time and means that we have done the work already, while the other leaves it still to be done.
	Therefore, it seems to me that what I am proposing is in the interests of the Government and in line with the views of all the parties represented in this House. It is certainly in line with the Law Commission's proposals. It said on conspiracy to defraud:
	On any view, the present system is anomalous and has no place in a coherent criminal law.
	Therefore, we are doing the right thing in terms of improving the law.

Mike O'Brien: As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly recognised, we had a very constructive and full discussion in Committee on 20 June. I have not changed my mind since then, but I hear the points that he makes. We hope in due course to be in a position where we can take the view that conspiracy to defraud can be removed from the statute book. Until then, there is guidance, which has been passed to Front-Bench Members of other parties to look at. I would welcome hearing their views on that. We intend that the conspiracy to defraud offence should be used sparingly, while, in the meantime, we would examine the impact that repeal would have.
	However, let me just say that there is a difference in law, albeit not so much politically or in policy terms, between what the hon. Gentleman wants and what we want. The difference in law is about the prosecutor being able to use conspiracy to defraud if that is appropriate. If there is a guillotinea sunset provisionin respect of that law, it risks to some extent discrediting it, and therefore I am opposed to the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
	Let me give seven good reasons for taking the view that we have, in the hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his new clause. First, the Government plan to review conspiracy to defraud in the course of the next three years. Secondly, as Lord Rose's Committee representing the views of judges stated, some issues are not covered by the Fraud Bill as it stands, and we need to look at how they would be coveredin particular, where it is intended that someone outside a conspiracy would commit the final offence, and also cases where the accused cannot be proved to have had the necessary degree of knowledge of the substantive offence to be perpetrated. We want to look at how we will deal with such issues, if we repeal the offence of conspiracy to defraud.
	Thirdly, we want to look at the impact of the new laws under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which we hope to implement soon, in respect of making changes on conspiracy to defraud. Fourthly, the Law Commission is studying the law covering forms of participation in crimes that do not amount to a statutory conspiracy. We want to see what its recommendations are, and the results of its inquiries. Fifthly, the Law Commission published in July a report on inchoate liability in crime, and we want more time to examine the impact that that might have. Sixthly, we also believe that it is useful to look further at the consultation paper on organised and financial crime, which was published in July. We want to examine the responses to that and see how these issues affect the whole ambit of conspiracy to defraud.
	Finally, the fraud review itself only finishes its consultation period tomorrow, and we want to examine how that review will affect the overall way that this country deals with fraud. Hopefully, that will also enable us to take a broader view of conspiracy to defraud.
	So for all those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome feels able to withdraw his new clause.

David Heath: We can probably dispose of these amendments, which continue a useful discussion that we had in Committee, in an equally brief period.
	Amendment No. 1 is new and picks up on a point made in Committee by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We were considering the following phrase from clause 4:
	A person is in breach of this section if he...(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person.
	The hon. Gentleman made the interesting point that it is possible for the person who might be accused of such an offence to no longer occupy the position in question, but to retain a fiduciary duty on the basis of the position that he had occupied. The clause uses the phrase occupies a position, rather than occupies or has occupied, which would be a very cumbersome way of putting it. My amendment would replace that phrase with by reason of position, which would enable the clause to apply not only to the holder of a position, but to a past holder, and thereby encompasses both without any ambiguity. I simply table it for the Solicitor-General's consideration.
	Amendment No. 2 relates to a point that was debated in Committee and is not dissimilar to one tabled there by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. I remain concerned about the interpretation of the phrase is expected to, which, in the light of the Solicitor-General's explanation in Committee, extends beyond a fiduciary duty to some other expectation. However, we have not yet satisfactorily concluded in whose mind the expectation lies. Is it in that of the person who commits the putative offence, or in that of the person against whom the offence is committed? Is that expectation what a reasonable person might expect, or what a court might expect?
	Although the Solicitor-General helpfully explained fiduciary duty in some detail in Committee, he did not convince me that he could offer examples that would not fall into the expanded definition of fiduciary duty as interpreted by the courts, but which would nevertheless constitute criminality that ought to be caught by this provision. In fact, a fiduciary duty is capable of a much wider interpretation than a strict contractual liability, for example. Indeed, it is already being interpreted by the courts in that way, so it would be a more precise term to use in this clause.
	I tabled these amendments in an attempt to improve the Bill, rather than to in any way change its meaning. I think that my terms are more precise, but I look forward to the Solicitor-General's response.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I had a particularly useful and interesting visit to his city, Leicester, where I found a positive response from the people who had spontaneously arrived to discuss European issues. I was to grateful to him and to other Leicester Members for arranging that meeting.

Geoff Hoon: I think that I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point.
	As the Commission's Plan D rightly stresses, citizens are much more interested in the practical policies affecting their daily lives than in arcane institutional questions. The Government therefore broadly welcome the ideas and proposals contained in the Commission's Citizens' Agenda, published in May, which sets out its strategic thinking on taking forward the future of Europe debate. The Hampton Court agenda, one of the many successes of our recent EU presidency, provided the inspiration for much of the substance of the Commission's Citizens' Agenda and the subsequent decision at the June European Council to concentrate on what was described as a Europe of results.

Graham Brady: Can the Minister tell the House which new competences he would like the EU to have on environmental matters?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes that point of view, but he is not strictly accurate. The percentage of total spending by the European Union in that regard has decreased from 70 per cent. to a little more than 40 per cent., which is a significant change. Moreover, as was agreed at the end of the British presidency, there will be a further and fundamental review of how the EU spends it money, concentrating in particular on whether it has the right priorities. If my hon. Friend sets out his views with the usual clarity and force, as I anticipate that he will, they will clearly be taken into account, not only in this but other countries.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friends are clearly offering constructive advice and support, as they consistently dodo they not?
	I was talking about the constitutional treaty. I should emphasise that there is currently no consensus on the precise way forward. Since the French and Dutch no votes, the Government have consistently made clear that this is not a matter for one member state alone; it is for the 25 member states together to make decisions about the treaty's future. The June European Council agreed that the German presidency should present a report to the European Council in 2007, based on extensive consultations with member states. As a result, I have had a number of conversations with other EU partners on finding the right way forward. It is therefore important for me to indicate to Parliament how our own thinking on the subject is developing, and I intend to take an early opportunity to set out the underlying principles of our approach.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been very generous.
	Things appear to have moved on since the stuff that people were trotting out 10 years ago. Is the Minister not aware of the findings of an ICM poll of 1,000 chief executives in this country? They showed that 52 per cent. think that the EU is a failing organisation, 54 per cent. think that the disadvantages of overregulation outweigh any benefit to be had from a single market, and 60 per cent. want our arrangements with the EU to relate only to free trade. Does the Minister not agree that things have moved on considerably, and that people now think it is a bad thing to be in the EU, not a good thing?

Gisela Stuart: I want to return to an earlier point about the effectiveness of decision-making in the EU now that it comprises 27 member states and is growing. What is the British Government's attitude to the increasing inequality between large and small states, particularly when there are now so many small ones? What does the Minister think of the nonsense of having one commissioner for every country? As the EU expands, a Commission with 30-plus commissioners simply will not be able to operate effectively. What we should be arguing for is a commission of no more than 12, for example.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend tempts me to begin negotiations well before they need to start. She will be aware of a provision in the Nice treaty that goes a small way to delivering what she wants, in that after 1 January next year, the number of commissioners will, in the event of further enlargement, be reduced below the number of member states. However, it has to be discussed further before implementation.

Geoff Hoon: I had better make some progress, as other hon. Members want to take the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
	The June European Council also welcomed the citizen's agenda communication and its proposal to produce a 50th anniversary declaration. It is right that we should celebrate the anniversary of the treaty of Rome and 50 years of European achievement, including the spread of peace, security, prosperity and democracy. The Government look forward to engaging constructively on the declaration setting out Europe's values and ambitions next March.
	Following the successful model of an autumn informal summit a year ago at Hampton court, the European summit at Lahti on 21 October provided a welcome opportunity for EU leaders to take forward the delivery agenda. Discussions at Lahti focused on tackling the twin challenges of climate change and energy security, improving Europe's record on innovation and addressing our citizens' concerns on migration. EU leaders also discussed the grave situation in Darfur, and had a working dinner with the Russian President Putin.
	The Lahti summit provides us with a good basis for further delivering the policy agenda outlined at Hampton court. It is central to building an EU that continues to make life better for its citizens. Our vision is of an EU with a fully liberalised energy market and a strong dialogue with key energy-producing states, leading the way globally in tackling climate change by exporting ideas like the emissions trading scheme. Our vision is of an EU that is more prosperous, because it will attract investment and compete effectively with the new economic giants of India and China. Our vision is of an EU where businesses can work across borders without red tape and be the home of European champions; an EU that is more effective, with a powerful voice in the world, working to eliminate poverty and promote development; and an EU that has successfully enlarged to include the western Balkans and Turkey, and has supported reform in neighbouring countries to bring them closer to European standards. Above all, we want an EU that is more relevant as it continues to make life better for its citizens, and one that enables Europeans to take advantage of, rather than retreat from, a changing world. This Government are at the forefront of that European agenda.
	The Commission's commitment to delivery is entirely welcome. This Government are a long-time advocate of a modern European Union, assertive in tackling and responding to the challenges of the 21st century. We have an unequivocal and proactive engagement in the EU, working with our European partners to push for progress in those areas, such as climate change, terrorism and globalisation, in which
	by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone.
	Only by tackling those issues confidently and collectively can we build an EU that our citizens recognise as adding value to their lives. I commend the motion to the House.

Graham Brady: I join the Minister in congratulating the European Scrutiny Committee, which has done a fantastic job in producing the reports, and its new Chairman, who will, I am sure, continue the excellent record of his predecessor in seeking to expose what is going on and ensuring proper scrutiny. Following the rejection of the constitution in two referendums, it is vital that the British Government should make a clear contribution to the debate about the future of the European Union.
	The constitution proposed more EU powers, more qualified majority voting, a move towards a single foreign policy and a single foreign Minister. In essence, it was the continuation of everything that has gone wrong with the EU in the past, including a burgeoning bureaucracy with decisions taken too far away from the people, a structure thataccording to one of its own Commissionershas allowed the 600 billion cost of regulation to outstrip the direct benefits of the single market. No wonder that the ICM poll for Open Europe mentioned by my hon. Friend earlier found that 52 per cent. of the 1,000 British business leaders questioned thought that the EU was going in profoundly the wrong direction.
	The people of France and the Netherlands offered us an historic opportunity to turn things around. Their referendums knocked the wind out of the sails of the old-fashioned advocates of ever closer union. The chance was there for Britain to lead Europe towards a more open, flexible, deregulated and free-trading future. The tragic, or perhaps just farcical, failure of the Government to rise to that challenge is laid bare by the reports before us.
	The 12-month period of reflection passed and was extended. The Austrian presidency called on members to report on their national debates so that a new plan could be synthesised, but nothing came from this directionless Government. As the Committee so scathingly observed in its 31st report
	All in all it is hard to avoid the impression that the United Kingdom has been significantly less involved, at all levels, in the process so far than have other member states, parliamentarians and citizens.
	The Minister referred to his belief that the Government are at the centre of the debate in Europe, but that certainly was not the view taken by the Committee and I do not think that any rational Member, considering what has happened in the past 18 months, could possibly share that view. Surely that was not what the Prime Minister had in mind when he stirringly told the European Parliament that the peoples of the European Union
	are wanting our leadership. It is time we gave it to them.
	Meanwhile, the German Chancellor has argued for a relaunch of the constitution and the French debate has become a significant part of their presidential election, with talk of a mini treaty and various other options. The British Government still have not said whether they support the constitution now or have some other vision. We read last week reports that the Foreign Secretary denounced the constitution as a grandiose project that had failed. That is welcome, but the Prime Minister's signature remains on the constitution and motions for its implementation remain on the Order Paper. Today the Minister said that at some point in the near future he will give an outline of his views on the future of the European Union, but that will come after a protracted period in which we are meant to have been having a national debate about the issue. I think that we deserve rather more, especially as we stand just a few months away from the Berlin declaration, which is due in March next year, and the German Government's plan to relaunch the drive for a new EU constitution. However, the British Government, after 18 months of pathetic vacillation, have failed to shape that debate at all.

Graham Brady: The internal management may well need changes, but it is also important that the EU seeks to do less so that it can cope with its existing agenda. A central problem is that the EU is failing to make the necessary progress in matters such as energy policy in the single market precisely because its ambitious political agenda is diverting attention from the things that matter. However, our highest priority is to remove social and employment regulation in this country from European control and bring it back under British control. That would be an important start in the process that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
	The national debate called for in the document entitled Plan D for Democracy was never allowed to happen in this country. The Finnish presidency has called for new powers over our police and courts. The Citizens' Agenda calls for
	an initiative to improve decision taking and accountability in areas such as police and judicial co-operation and legal migration.
	What do the Government think about that? I have asked that question repeatedly, but received no clear answers.

David Drew: I know what Conservative policy is in respect of bringing back the social union, but is that not hypocritical if the single market is retained? Workers can be exploited across Europe, yet they will have no protection. That is ludicrous: surely we should get rid of the single market as well?

Michael Connarty: I am stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock is being damned by the Opposition's faint praise of the work of the European Scrutiny Committee; the hard place is trying to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood) as Chair of the Committee.
	My hon. Friend held that position from 1992, when the Committee was the European Legislation Committee, until he demitted office on 18 October 2006. He now represents Parliament on one of the NATO Committees. It is a great honour, but greatly difficult, to follow someone who outlasted 10 Europe Ministers and five Committee Clerksquite a record. He may have been the longest serving Chair of a Select Committee. He made many friends and many important contributions to progress in Europe, especially in strengthening the role of COSAC.
	I want to represent the Committee's position, much of which has been quoted selectively. The Committee doubted that the communication provided a new vision for the future of the EUwhich future would be of great importance to everyone in the UK. It doubted that the proposed agenda, which was not new, would be effective in bridging the gap between the EU and the public and found that the Government were generally unwilling to give more than, at best, a sketchy view on the proposals in any of the important communications. We found that the Government's position seemed to be to shelter behind the obvious absence of any consensus in the EU on the future of Europe. Instead, they preferred to say, in their explanatory memorandums and in the ESC Sub-Committee debate on Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate, that there was no consensus on the future of Europe and that they would inform the House when one emerged.
	The Committee thought that it was right to recommend the communication, along with the documents tagged to it, for debate on the Floor of the House, to give Ministers an opportunity to set out their views on it and the outcome of the discussion in the European Council. As the Minister noted, in paragraph 8 of our 38th report of 18 October, we invited him to discuss the issues in today's debate.
	When we look at the huge scope of the communicationson Europe in the world, neighbourhood policy, trade and competitiveness, development, strategic relations, political dialogue, common foreign and security policy, disaster response, crisis management and European security and defence policywe find that there is a huge range of agendas. A question on our agenda was asked by House of Lords Sub-Committee C. We repeated it in our 38th report, but it remained unanswered. It was about
	which of the proposals in 'Europe in the World' could be implemented without further consideration of the Constitutional Treaty.
	Having listened to the Minister today, I am not convinced that Members serving on the European Scrutiny Committee and other hon. Members have a clearer notion of the Government's view. I am not convinced that any of us know whether the Government take the Foreign Secretary's view or the Minister's view, as they seem to diverge on the double-hatting of EU officials in defence security policy. The question has not been answered, but we hoped that it would be answered before today's debate.
	We should welcome substantial elements of the European transparency initiative document, including what it says about consultation, the disciplining and registration of the lobbying process in Europe, and transparency. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) would welcome the document, because it will introduce a binding EU-level framework on member states that will ensure a consistent approach to access and transparency with regard to all beneficiaries of EU funds. From the Committee's point of view, when anyone asks the Commission for the facts, it either says that it does not have them to hand, or it says that it cannot give them to anyone because it must first obtain the permission of the member state that spent, or mis-spent, those EU funds. The document will be a great step forward, if it is introduced across the EU.
	I thank the Minister for his considered view, which appears in the addendum to our 38th report of 18 October. It is an excellent document, and it represents progress. I would have liked him to explain further what he said in that addendum, because it gave us some heart that we would be able to engage in serious dialogue. Although it has not yet been deposited by the Government, the Commission's 2007 legislative work programme has been introduced, and I look forward to a dialogue with the Minister, as well as the opportunity to work with our colleagues in the other place, on the programme's details. I should be grateful if we secured a debate on the subject.
	We received a disappointing result to a perfectly courteous request from the Committee for a detailed explanation of the Government's position on the items in the document, although the items themselves are to be welcomed. I welcome the Minister's statement that the EU is seeking no new competences; that is what everyone wanted to hear. People want a position of stability, so that we can have a genuine debate in this period of reflection, as it is called, after the constitution failed to be adopted in some countries.

Richard Younger-Ross: We must welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. We believe that he will do an excellent job, following on from his predecessor. We look forward to working with him over the coming years.
	On transparency, do we not sometimes get the feeling that Ministers would prefer to continue to negotiate in smoke-filled rooms, rather than in the open? Some of that negotiation in smoke-filled rooms has led to some poor decisions in the past: for instance, Cyprus being permitted to join the Union before any resolution between the north and south, and Bulgaria and Romania being able to join with only a one-year deferment, rather than being held until such a point as they complied with the necessary EU regulation.

Gisela Stuart: Yes, extremists, whether from the right or the left, appear to be offering certainties, and people want certainties. That is worrying.
	But I want to look at our own house, before we criticise the rest of Europe. There are two options. We can either draw more of the decision making up into Brussels, which clearly has not worked, or we can draw it down to member states, which is what I think we need to do. In that regard, we should start at home. Let me give an example of what I mean. Early in October, I turned the radio on and tuned into the Today programme, hoping to have my daily rant at John Humphrys. Our Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was talking about age discrimination legislation, and I thought that it was very good legislation, and that I would have enjoyed, and have felt proud as a Labour MP, to have gone out and campaigned and said, This is what we have done.
	But what happened? That is the first I had heard of that legislation, so I sent an e-mail to the Library, asking whether the House of Commons had ever debated that it. The Library wrote back saying that the legislation was statutory instrument 2006/2408. It could find no debates on it in the Commons, but there was a debate in the Lords, on 30 March. Of course, the Lords cannot amend statutory instruments. I read the relevant Lords Hansard and discovered that they did indeed debate itfrom 4.22 to 4.54 pm, which is a grand total of 32 minutes. I did a little more reading, and I was given the website link for the relevant research paper. This morning, I asked for a hard copy of it. It has not been printed yet.
	Since 1997, there have been nine attempts to introduce anti-age discrimination legislationvia ten-minute Bills and amendments to existing legislation, for example so this issue has exercised the House. That is good, but I would have liked to have known about it. There is another reason why the House should debate such legislation at length. When Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and explain their understanding of such legislation, courts then refer to such statements in interpreting that legislation.
	There was another element of that Today programme that really upset me. When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was asked whether the new anti-age discrimination legislation would be incompatible with certain UK legislation, he said that it had yet to be tested in the courts. I do not have a problem with legislation being tested in the courts, but we need to give courts guidance on how we regard it. When such legislation affects all our constituentsindeed, this legislation will have ramifications that we have not even dreamt of yetwe need to be much more realistic about how we deal with and debate it in this House.
	I have three suggestions. First, we should have a proper Europe Minister. By that I mean a Minister who is in the Cabinet, who has regular [Interruption.] The current Minister for Europe is a perfect candidate and I would propose him for that role. Indeed, I want to enhance his role. In addition to being in the Cabinet, he should have regular question sessions at the Dispatch Box as the Minister for Europe, during which he explains all the decisions taken at European level that impact on domestic legislation, and how matters will be co-ordinated across Whitehall. That role is currently fulfilled by our permanent representative in Brussels, but I would like it to be fulfilled by someone of Cabinet rank who is regularly answerable to this House. Indeed, in terms of its political significance, that role is almost one for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Gisela Stuart: I am sure that, whatever the title of the position, the House would soon knock whoever holds it into shape. I would also move that role out of the Foreign Office, because this is a domestic issue.
	My second suggestion is that MEPs should debate with Members of Parliament issues on which they have a vote; for example, rapporteurs should debate significant legislation with MPs. We should not go to Brusselsthey should come here. A debate in this House on the service directive would have been extremely helpful, and I, for one, would love to see more of Mr. Andrew Duff, so that he can explain the Liberals' position in this Chamber. For once, that would flush out the hypocrisy of the Liberals, who are the most fierce integrationists in Brussels, but who say that they want to withdraw from the fisheries policy when the fight general elections. We would have a bit of fun, particularly when we heard what the European People's party had to say.
	Thirdly, whatever the nature of the debate on the future of Europe, we must at some stage openly acknowledge that there is a big divide between countries that are members of the single currency and those that are not. The latter will require far deeper political integration to create an effective single currencythere is absolutely no way round that. If we go on pretending that that is not the situation, we will not even begin to have an honest debate.
	It is great to have a debate on the citizens' agenda, but we need to start to examine the failures of this House to bring it closer to its people and to have a bit more openness about problems that are staring us in the face while we go on pretending that they do not exist.

William Cash: I very much endorse my right hon. Friend's comments and those of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston. I should point out that next week we vote on changing the Standing Orders that deal with questions of how the House handles this business. Is it not extremely important that we emphasise in that debate, by amendments or otherwise, the supremacy of this Parliament over the European Communities Act 1972 to allow ourselves to veto legislation when we know that it will do a great deal of harm to the people of this country and the people of Europe?

David Heathcoat-Amory: I have a constructive suggestionopening up all the secret committees to public scrutiny.
	The Government are guilty of secrecy in the House. I serve on the European Scrutiny Committee, along with the distinguished new Chairman, who contributed earlier. Our deliberations take place in private. The public are not allowed even into those. In the previous Parliament, we passed a motion to open up the Committee to public scrutiny so that the press and the public can see what we do on their behalf. That sat in the in-tray of the then Leader of the House and he did nothing to change Standing Orders. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) is rightnot only the European Union but the British Government have a conspiracy against the public. That makes any initiative about openness and transparency a sham.
	The documents also refer to the allied question of over-regulation and discuss the need to reduce the burdens and intrusions suffered by businesses and the public. I have counted last year's directives, regulations and binding decisions, of which there are 2,900. That adds to the acquis communautaire in the European Union, which already runs to more than 100,000 pages. The European Scrutiny Committee grapples with the issue as best it can, but we cannot stop those regulations, and, increasingly, the Government cannot stop them, too, because more and more of them are decided by majority voting. Again, the analysis is correct, but the policy is lacking.
	The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) referred to one of the specifics in plan D, the entitlement card. Who will pay for the entitlement card? What will be on it? Will it include a chip containing all 100,000 pages of the acquis communautaire to let us know what we are entitled to in the European Union? Is that really the way to close the gap between the public and the politicians in Europe? It has also been suggested that a corps of European goodwill ambassadors will go around telling us about plan D. Have they arrived here yetI have not met them? Who will pay for them? I am willing to meet them, because I am a man of goodwill.
	There is a serious problem, and it cannot be solved by reviving a discredited European constitution. If we are to create a people's Europe rather than a politician's Europe, if we want a democratic Europe rather than a bureaucratic state and if we want an open Europe rather than a closed shop, we need the fundamental, thoroughgoing reform of the entire way in which the European Union is structured, financed and run. Such a project is entirely lacking in the documents, and it was not even attempted in the Convention on the Future of Europe. In a notably weak contribution this afternoon, the Minister gave no hint of any Government ambition in that direction. It will therefore fall to this party, when in government, to take forward that task not only on behalf of the people of this country, but on behalf of the people of Europe, who are struggling to create a different Europe that yearns to be free.

Hilary Benn: I wish to begin by thanking all those who contributed to the White Paper that is the subject of today's far too brief debate. I hope that those who take a careful note of what we say in this Chamber will recognise the desire on both sides of the House for more time to discuss these very important matters. I wish to thank Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the White Paper, and the remarkable civil servants at DFID who wrote it. I also wish to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his unstinting support and guidance.
	For me, the White Paper was the result of three years in this extraordinary job, years in which I have learned a great deal and reflected much on the causes of global poverty and what needs to be done to help so many of our fellow human beings to transform their own lives. The facts are painfully clear. It is a scandalthere is no other word for itthat we live in a world where every minute a woman dies in pregnancy or childbirth; where every day, dirty water kills 5,000 children; and where, every year, malaria claims 1 million lives, tuberculosis 2 million lives and AIDS 3 million lives. But for me, the greatest scandal of all is that that happens, not in a time of famine and global war, but in an age of unprecedented potential. It happens in a world eight times richer than it was 50 years ago.
	That potentialthe power of politics to change things, of economic development to transform lives, of scientific ingenuity to save lives, and of working together to make all this happenis immense. But so are the challenges that we face as trade, technology, migration, climate change, terrorism and disease mould our world into a new shape.
	Just consider. As more and more people in the developing world move to towns and cities to try to improve their lives, where will the homes, the water, the sanitation, the public services and the jobs they will need come from?
	As the world's population increases by half as much again in the next two generations, how will we stop many of the as yet unborn from emerging into a life of grinding poverty? How will we cope with pandemics such as avian flu or severe acute respiratory syndrome that could spread right across the globe if they are not dealt with quickly? What will we do if rapid economic change, inequality and arguments over scarce resources result in violence? How will we deal with the effects of the climate change that is already upon us, never mind that which is yet to come? How will we deal with the rising sea levels, the floods, droughts, hurricanes and crop failures, or with the movements of people who will not stay still to drown or die of thirst?
	The challenge is simply daunting, but as we contemplate the future, one thing is clear beyond doubtwithout good governance we will not be able to defeat poverty, or climate change, or war, or famine. That is why we put good governance at the heart of this White Paper.
	Good governance is important for all countries, but especially for those fragile states in which 300 million of the world's poorest people live. In those states, corruption in often more prevalent, Government structures are weaker and violent conflict is more likely. I really welcome yesterday's International Development Committee report on conflict and development, which said that investing in the causes of conflict is much better, and much less costly in money or lives, than trying to pick up the pieces later.
	Peace and security are the fundamental expressions of good governance. There cannot be any development in countries where there is conflict. That is why the UK has helped to build peace and security in Mozambique and Rwanda, for example. It is why we are doing the same in Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan and Iraq, and why we are trying to secure peace in Darfur. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the humanitarian workers, to our staff and to local staff, to the people working for non-governmental organisations and to the soldiers of many nations for the courage and professionalism that they show in those most difficult of places.
	We are going to increase our efforts in fragile states, and invest more in at least 10 countries where security is a major concern. We will help with reintegrating ex-combatants, and we will support access to justice and monitor human rights. We will try to reduce the spread of small arms, and that will include trying to win support for an international arms trade treaty.
	Good governance is also about effective states that are capable of doing things for their people, and about creating the conditions in which economies can flourish so people can have the chance to earn a living. Effective states respond to what people want and need and, in turn, can be held to account. Good governance means that people have the right to choose their leaders and change them, and to have a say and to be heard. Good governance is about ensuring the rule of law. It is about good policing and upholding human rights and freedoms. It is about fighting the corruption that steals money that could otherwise be spent on buying medicines or on getting children into school. Corruption, we know, hits poor people hardest, and poor women most of all.
	How does a societyany societyensure good governance? What really makes the difference is what people choose to do. They must demand that their Governments secure such things for them, and that is why we will go on helping Governments to build their capacity. We are setting up the governance and transparency fund so that Parliaments and civil society, the media, trade unions and those working to improve transparency and openness can be helped to hold their Governments to account.
	That is why we want to continue to make sure that our aid money goes where it is intended. Our new governance assessments will help us to do that. They will help us to recognise when a country is improving and to determine what to do when there are problems. This approach will build on the three simple questions that we already ask of our partnersare they committed to reducing poverty, do they uphold human rights and international obligations, and are they fighting corruption and promoting good governance? Depending on the answers that we get, we will take decisions about the kind of aid that we give.
	Even where governance is awful, such as in Zimbabwe, we will not walk away, as that would be to punish poor people twice overonce for being poor, and a second time for having a lousy Government. The same is true for corruption. We need to be tough on it and on its causes, because the only solution is that countries must change the culture in which corruption thrives. They must enforce the law and implement the checks, the balances and the openness needed to guard against it.

Hilary Benn: Britain played an important part in pushing for that package; it has been agreed in principle and is fundamental to making progress. In truth, we will have to consider what to do if things remain stalled, but the best way to move them forward is to get agreement in the Doha talks and we intend to continue to push for that. We know that economic development has changed the lives of people in this country over the last 200 years, and it will do the same for people in developing countries.
	That takes time, however. We need to help now so that everyone can see a doctor when they are ill, go to school, drink clean water and have a safety net when times are hard. With our aid rising to meet the UN 0.7 per cent. target by 2013, we will increase our spending on those public services to at least half our bilateral aid budget. We will make long-term commitments through 10-year plans so that countries can make long-term decisions. That is why, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I visited Maputo just before Easter, we said that we would put 8.5 billion into education over the next 10 years, so that the money that we and other donors commit can be put alongside the money that developing countries raise for themselves to match their plans to get children into schools, to employ teachers, to build classrooms and to buy textbooks.
	There are practical problems, but we will do more on AIDS and maternal and child health. We have already committed to doubling our spending on water and sanitation in Africa by 2007 and to doubling it again by 2010, because clean water changes women's lives. We will significantly increase our spending on social security in at least 10 countries in Asia and Africa over the next three years, because we know that small amounts of support are one of the most effective ways to help people out of the cycle of dependency.

Andrew Mitchell: I start by strongly supporting the Secretary of State's comments about the way in which this debate has been shoved on to the schedule, at the fag end of a Thursday afternoon, when many Members cannot be here. As a result of the short time available for debate, few Members will be able to take part. It is more than a year since we had a debate on international development, and I hope that the usual channels will conclude that that is simply not good enough.
	Let me start by making the Conservative position absolutely clear. We strongly support the Government's goals for international development as set out by the Secretary of State today. Support for the British contribution to international development is not a Labour or Conservative policy, but a British commitment, and the Secretary of State knows that he can rely on support from across the House. I will go further: at a time when the Government's failureswhether on public service reform or across the spectrum of Home Office policyare the currency of practically every news bulletin and comment column in our press, the Secretary of State and the Minister are, uniquely, doing a good job, and we applaud them for it. From time to time, we have differences of opinion about how to make British policies more effective and how to reach the millennium development goals faster, but in many ways, however, the Government are on the right track.
	The situation is not all doom and gloom. A few days ago, I heard about an HIV/AIDS clinic in Namibia that recently closed its doors, not because of lack of funds but because the spread of new infections in the area had been curtailed. As the Secretary of State said, we have made good progress on polio, and far fewer children die from diarrhoea than was the case 20 years ago, because oral rehydration therapy is more widely available. Far too many children, however, continue to suffer. As the Secretary of State said in the House yesterday, and as he reiterated today, there are three times as many people on antiretrovirals as there were just 12 months ago.
	There is a nucleus of African states whose Governments are increasingly committed to doing the right thing. People such as Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, are showing leadership. They are tough on corruption and they serve the people whom they are honoured to lead. Their example shames the corrupt, self-serving dictators and autocrats who, alas, still populate the developing world. We can work well with those improving Governments and, by their example, show the rest what can be done. At the moment, the friends of development operate in a benign climate. There is political consensus on the importance of development, and all parties are committed to the unified British approach to development.
	There is mass public support for the development agenda, as Gleneagles showed last year. Germany has agreed to back that agenda and take it forward when it assumes the G8 presidency next year. However, we must not take public support for granted. Our aid budget is set to rise to 0.7 per cent. of national income by 2013. Indeed, that is the only spending commitment that the Conservative party has announced so far. To put that percentage into context, based on current economic predictions, the equivalent amount in cash will be well over double what it is today. Taxpayers rightly demand clear and transparent spending. As the funding rises so, too, will their expectation that output should match input. Our aim is to achieve the millennium development goals but, on current trends, the 2015 target will not be met. Ironically, Asia will probably achieve its MDGs, but Africa will not do so. In five years' time, when the period covered by the White Paper comes to an end, people will look at the MDGs and realise that they will not be achieved, despite a rising aid budget. They will be right to ask tough questions, so we cannot afford to leave any doubt in the public's mind about whether the money has been well spent. We must be able to demonstrate the concrete, tangible results of their investment. If we do not achieve those results, we will lose the determination of purpose and public confidence that have fuelled the enthusiasm and commitment to development.
	I warmly welcome the call in the White Paper to focus our aid on the poorest people and countries, as well as its resolute poverty focus. We have rightly moved on from the time when aid was tied to commercial interests, and the White Paper correctly notes that aid is more effective when given to countries with good governance. Even in those countries, however, not all aid projects are effective. Aid selectivity is not enoughwe need stronger aid evaluation, too. We need rigorously to evaluate aid projects, giving more money to those that work, and refraining from supporting those that do not, to achieve the greatest possible reduction in poverty and suffering with our finite aid budget.
	Aid projects are not always well evaluated. A recent internal report entitled, How effective is DFID?, showed that the Department often has little awareness of whether its aid has been spent on effective projects or whether it has obtained good value for money. I was disappointed by the lack of new proposals on improving aid effectiveness in the White Paper. DFID must take the lead by guaranteeing the independent evaluation of project effectiveness. There should be greater use of impact assessments to discover exactly how our aid is helping people, which is why I have proposed an independent aid watchdog to scrutinise British aid.
	It is, I acknowledge, sometimes difficult to measure the effectiveness of aid. The Statistics Commission recently highlighted the problems with using the MDGs to measure DFID's performance. A poor country could be making progress towards the MDGs despite ineffective aid programmes, or the positive effects of an effective aid programme could be masked by negative outside factors. The White Paper would have been a good opportunity to grapple with some of those difficult issues and to suggest improvements in the way in which aid effectiveness could be consistently and rigorously assessed and compared.
	The White Paper's focus on governance is, of course, enormously important. Without good domestic institutions, outside aid cannot lead to victory in the battle against poverty. I note with interest the White Paper's pledge for DFID to double its spending on science and technology. New technologiesin particular, vaccines and medicineshave the potential to do immense good. However, we should not forget that many technologies already exist that allow us to reduce suffering cheaply: $5 malaria bed nets, DOTS treatment for tuberculosis, vaccinations that protect an entire family from disease for a few pounds, and oral rehydration therapy that can save a child's life for 20p. The challenge is to roll out those technologies, as well as to invent more of them. We must ensure that new technologies are appropriate to the context in which they will be used. That is why I am particularly interested in progress on microbicides, which could empower women in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
	I welcome the discussion of migration and remittances in the White Paper. Sending money back to developing countries is often a costly business. I look forward to hearing what specific ideas the Secretary of State has to help lower the cost of remittancing. Economic growth is clearly central to development. One has only to look at India and China to see that. The White Paper rightly identifies trade as a crucial driver of wealth creation and development. Last week, I met the deputy US trade representative, Ambassador John Veroneau. He is not a man with whom one would wish to play poker. However, I got the impression that he is willing, in principle, to go further to make the Doha round work. Indeed, President Bush has given such instructions. Commissioner Mandelson has also indicated that he is willing to go further. As soon as the mid-term elections are out of the way, I urge the Government to press hard for real movement in the Doha talks.
	The White Paper also indicates support for an international arms trade treaty. It focuses on the need for the treaty to include all the world's major arms exporters, rather than to be overly rigorous in what it enforces. There is a tension between a universal and relatively weak treaty, and a stronger treaty ratified by a small number of Governments. The priority must be to ensure that countries such as China sign up to it and then live up to their obligations. Perhaps in his summary the Minister could say a little more about how and when the treaty might get some flesh on its bones.
	I am pleased that the White Paper covers the crucial issue of how climate change and environmental degradation interact with international development policy, as the Secretary of State said. As I saw in Bangladesh recently, climate change will hit the poor hardest and fastest. It has arguably had an effect on the crisis in Darfur and it will lead to more natural disasters. The idea of an independent world humanitarian report to monitor how well the world responds to humanitarian crises is a good one.
	I warmly welcome the decision to focus more on disaster preparation and mitigation, rather than simply responding to disasters once they have happened. One of the major problems with current aid efforts is that we have not worked out a good way in which to make the transition from immediate humanitarian relief after a catastrophe to long-term reconstruction. Sadly, there are a number of examples of that around the world. I hope that we will hear more from the Secretary of State on that and I hope that he will press for better co-ordination, auditing and accountability in relation to the aid funds that are used in response to disasters.
	Much of the White Paper focuses on the issues that I have been discussinggovernance and aidbut there are some other important areas that the Government may have overlooked. For example, addressing gender inequality should play a major role in international development efforts. Women often bear the greatest costs of poverty. Too many girls do not go to school. Women bear the brunt of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. According to Amartya Sen, the most effective aid projects are those that improve access to water, so that women spend less time walking miles to fetch it, and those that improve female education.
	The White Paper also largely neglects the growing role of China and India in international development. The geopolitical landscape is changing, and the growing prosperity of India and China pose new challenges for DFID. Last week, in Beijing, I struggled to resolve the conundrum that Britain is spending 150 million over the next few years in a country that had a trade surplus last month of $15 billion. However, even as those countries approach middle-income status, we must not forget that hundreds of millions of people in western China and states such as Bihar in India are very poor. Indeed, there are more poor people in India than there are in the whole of Africa. In reality, India and China lift hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty each month because their economic policies embrace growth and they benefit from participation in the international trading system.
	I was slightly concerned by the inconsistent analysis in the White Paper of the role of business. Private businesses are the ultimate engines of growth here and in the developing world. Multinational businesses create employment, drive up wages and working conditions, and help to spread technology. They contribute to not just growth, but social justice. However, the White Paper confines the role of business to one chapter, and when it refers to international partners, business does not seem to be one of them. The private sector should not be defined in such a limited way. There is a role for business in building water infrastructure and providing health care, education and other basic services. DFID should be open-minded about working with businesses to achieve more. I welcome the White Paper's robust stance on tackling corruption by business, but the Secretary of State and the Department of Trade and Industry will know how treacherous an area this is: one man's bribe is another man's free lunch. As well as clamping down on the private sector when it does wrong, we must celebrate and encourage its achievements when it is a force for good, which it is for the vast majority of the time.
	The White Paper contains some 170 action points. They cover a broad and rightly ambitious agenda and I am pleased to say that I agree with at least 150 of them. Many of them require DFID staff to engage with international stakeholders, and I hope that the Department has the capacity to deliver on them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At the risk of stating the obvious, there is not much time left for the debate. Hon. Members will do themselves a favour if they could undertake to make relatively short speeches, so that I can get as wide a variety of contributions as possible.

Joan Ruddock: I congratulate Ministers on this DFID White Paper, which is both inspiring and sober. It gives us hope on what can be achieved and warns of the great hurdles ahead. I also congratulate the production team, because this excellent document is beautifully presented, easy to read and composed of 100 per cent. recycled material.
	My main parliamentary interests are the environment and gender, so when I joined the International Development Committee, I brought those issues to my deliberations, and I see the White Paper from that perspective. Nowhere is global co-operation more vital than in tackling climate change. As the Gleneagles communiqu noted, around 2 billion people lack modern energy services, and global energy demands are expected to grow by 60 per cent. in the next 25 years. Before the ink was dry on that communiqu, the scientists were telling us that the situation was even more critical. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) said, the tipping point for irreversible change could arrive by 2020.
	The consequences for development are awesome, which is why I greatly welcome chapter 7 of the White Paper, with its stark headlines, Climate change poses the most serious long-term threat to development and the Millennium Development Goals and Developing countries will need support to adapt. The costs will be huge. As other Members have said, the effects of climate change will bear down hardest on those who depend most on environmental factors for their livelihood. Last year, in Malawi, our Select Committee saw the terrible effects of the previous year's drought, and the dependency of people on foreign food aid. In neighbouring Mozambique, we saw the devastation brought by floods and torrential rains. As the White Paper says, three of the four natural disastersdroughts, floods and cyclonesare weather-related, and 97 per cent. of deaths from natural disasters occur in developing countries.
	The devastating consequences of climate change are our responsibility. The challenge is for all of us to face up to the fact that all our promises, and all our expectations and hope for development, could be negated by climate change. The G8 meeting at Gleneagles attempted to bring that to the fore, and it is critical that DFID leads the way in pursuing that Gleneagles agenda. Following on from that meeting, Globe UK, the all-party environment group, of which I am vice-chair, set up the G8 plus five dialogue to bring together parliamentarians to advance the Gleneagles agenda. We have worked closely with the World Bank on its energy investment framework, and we look forward to monitoring DFID's work in the field. When my hon. Friend the Minister sums up, will he give his assessment of the response of regional development banks to the World Bank's investment framework for clean energy?
	On my second interest, gender, I am afraid that, like some other Members, I must be critical of the Department. Women make up the vast majority of the poorest. They are poor because they are members of the poorest communities, but also because they are women. Women experience discrimination in every sphere of political, social and economic life and at every age. African women are the world's poorest people. They have the lowest life expectancy, and Africa has the greatest disparity between women and men in access to education, literacy and income in the world. Tackling women's poverty and inequality requires a transformation in relations between women and men, and a transformation in the way in which we define development. It also requires a definition of good governancewhich, as the Secretary of State has said, is central to the reportwhich recognises the implications of gender differences for people's access to essential public services, political participation and economic opportunity.
	The Department for International Development has a twin-track approach, combining specific activities aimed at empowering women with a commitment to pursue gender equality in the mainstream of all development programmes. To date, however, those commitments have not been implemented thoroughly or consistently. One World Action, in giving evidence to various reports, has argued that women's rights and gender equality are not a high priority outside the social development department of DFID. It says that, today, evidence of effective gender mainstreaming outside that cluster remains disappointing. I add to that assessment my dismay and astonishment that a 15-page consultation document on conflict policy produced by DFID does not mention the word women once.
	Six years ago, however, the UK led the international community in promoting Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. That resolution, unanimously adopted, recognised the disproportionate effect of conflict on women and underlined the essential role of women in the prevention of conflict and as full participants in post-conflict peace building and reconstruction efforts.
	Earlier this year, in recognition of the importance of that resolution, DIFD, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office produced an action plan. I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will appreciate how disappointing it is that the consultation document on conflict includes no reference to women or to the action plan. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will give me an undertaking that that serious omission will be corrected when the actual policy document is produced.
	The points that I have raised about gender are not new. My right hon. and hon. Friends will recognise them from various sessions in the Committee. There is, I think, a critical need for DIFD to change the way in which it is working. I know that the Secretary of State has acknowledged the need for a gender strategy, and I hope that one will be produced very soon.
	Although the White Paper contains references to women in the context of micro-finance and girls going to school, it is very light on all the other important issues, such as the climate change and economic agendas. As the Secretary of State says, good governance is at the heart of the White Paper, but governance that denies the rights, basic needs and interests of women and girlsthe majority of the populationcannot be considered good governance. No Government who neglect the rights, needs and interests of women and girls can be described as legitimate, and nowhere is that more important than in developing countries and countries recovering from conflict. I hope that my ministerial colleagues will give much fuller consideration to those issues, and will endeavour to strengthen accountability in relation to them.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. Although I have made criticisms, I have not the slightest doubt that we have one of the best international development Departments in the worldpossibly even the very best.

Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and to endorse all that she said, not only in terms of the contribution that we are making but in terms of her contribution. I assure the House that she is assiduous in presenting the issues that she raised. In my view, the Committee does not listen to her enough, and does not respond enough. If she continues to speak, we will.
	As a co-vice-chair of Globe UK, I consider issues of climate change to be fundamental. Although I do not think that all the criticisms of the Environmental Audit Committee are entirely fair or valid, I think that the Department must look again at what it is doing in its environmental and climate change programmes, and decide whether it can incorporate some of the Committee's recommendations in its future work.
	We are constrained by time. I agree with others that we require far more time to debate issues such as these, and I think that the Leader of the Housewho will be presenting proposals next weekshould take account of the fact that this is not the right way in which to treat the business with which we are dealing.
	There is much in the White Paper that I support. I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle): it is extremely well produced, a good read and a very good statement of policy. I am not sure that its content is radically new, but it provides a very good focus on where we are at. If some of what I say is critical, it is only because of the time constraint: there is no time to give praise, but there is time to make suggestions.
	Very briefly, then, I will say that there is cross-party recognition of the commitment to the 0.7 per cent. target. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) for reaffirming that on behalf of his party. There is, however, a need for clarification of how we are to achieve that target. There is also total support for debt relief, but I think that the Secretary of State will know what I am going to say next.
	It is true, of course, that when countries whose debt has been liquidated and which were servicing the debt in some way are relieved of that duty, money is released that can go into poverty reduction programmes. The Secretary of State must accept, however, that a good many countries were not servicing or repaying their debt, and writing off a debt that was not being repaid does not produce any more money. It seems to me that including all that debt relief as if it were a contribution to our 0.7 per cent. target is at least a little debatable. Would the Secretary of State be prepared to conduct an analysis to establish where money is and is not being genuinely released, and come up with an adjusted figure representing the real extra benefit from debt relief? That might help to define our contribution. Having said that, I obviously welcome the commitment to the 0.7 per cent. target, but the Secretary of State knows that some people say that, as a consequence of incorporating debt relief this year, there has been no real increase in the spend on development itself. Clearly, we should expect to see increases year on year.
	The Secretary of State was right to say that when we are working with developing countries, governance is crucial both for them and for us. Simply handing over money to corrupt regimes to siphon off is neither good for poverty reduction, nor the credibility of the programme. We must find ways of dealing with those circumstances. One of the problems in very poor countries where Governments do not pay their civil servants, teachers or nurses, for example, is that public service is no longer regarded as a job, but as a franchise. People have to go down below to get bribes from the people they are supposed to serve in order to sustain their family's income. We have to find ways of ensuring that that does not happen.
	It is interesting to note the launch of the campaign by the Mo Ibrahim foundation to form a league table of governance and give an award to the African leader who achieves the most. I have often said that one way of resolving problems of super-incumbency, if I may call it that, in Africa is to ensure that whatever presidents get in office, ex-presidents should get double, which might encourage people to move on.
	The relationship with the World Bank is the next important matter and the Secretary of State has made much of his withholding of 50 million. He told the Select Committee that he believes that it has already galvanised the bank into focusing attention on his concerns about conditionality. In a few weeks' time, we will see what the response is. I am sure that the Secretary of State would acknowledge that the reality is that we will be giving more money to the World Bank and we will be working with it. It has put tackling corruption high up its agenda, so it has to be a welcome partnership, which we will support.
	The Secretary of State's dilemma is that if he has a rising budget, and a reducing head count, more money will go by definition into international institutions that we do not control directly or into budget support. Finding ways of ensuring that our objectives are realised in that contextwithout necessarily imposing new conditionsis highly important.
	I am not omitting climate change from my discussion because I believe that it is less than absolutely central, but only because I agree with what has already been said and I want to put that on the record.
	On trade and the Doha round, it is simply unacceptable that the promise of delivering on a development round should be allowed to die or even to slumber. It would be a matter of shame to me if the EU contributed in any way to such a failure. I hope that the British Government will do everything in their power to persuade the EU, over which we have some influence, to take a bold step [Interruption.] I hear someone shouting, What about the Americans?, but we do not have institutional control over the Americans whereas we do have institutional engagement with the EU. Of course the Americans must respond. After what the Conservative spokesman said about the mid-term elections, I hope that America will be more prepared to do so.
	Surprisingly, however, I have a little bit more confidence that the Bush Administration might deliver on a Doha round than a reconstructed Congress after the November elections. That Congress looks to be more left-wing in one sense, but more protectionist in another. There is an opportunity here, but if we do not seize it now, the consequences will be unacceptably bad. If we reflect on the fact that the EU puts three times more money into agricultural subsidies than into its entire overseas development budget, that can only fill us with shame.
	The Secretary of State believes that budget support is an important mechanism for delivering aid. In principle, I and members of the Select Committee agree, but it does have its problems. Setting up 10-year partnership agreements, which create commitment and continuity, is a good approach. Given the all-party support for the basic principle of increasing aid, I hope that those agreements will be fully honoured and endorsed in principle, subject to the vagaries of what happens. It is important that the development of civil society in these countries is viewed as part and parcel of the process of budget support. The parliamentary network of the World Bank and all sorts of other bilateral arrangements with parliamentarians and civil society are important so that people know what is being given to a Government and where it is coming from. The right questions should be asked to hold people to account. The objective is to create the capacity for the Governments and the citizens of affected countries to deliver their own outcomes. If it is understood in that context, it is a project that it is well worth continuing withand, I hope, delivering.
	On the issue of conflict, I welcome the comments by the Secretary of State on our report and his assertion that it is a legitimate subject for debate in the Chamber rather than in Westminster Hall. The issue is the extent to which one single conflict can wipe out the whole value of the world aid budget, and there is more than one conflict going on. For example, what happened in Israel and Lebanon over the summer is a classic case in which we now have to divert massive amounts of aid money into Palestine because the conflict destroyed the Palestinian economy. I am not saying that those poor people should not be helped, but the conflict diverted funds and that means that other poor people, whom we want to help, will not get funds. That is an indication of the problem.
	This is not the moment to have a debate about whether all the conflict situations we are in are ones in which we are totally blameless. The ones that we have considered in Africa are not ones in which the United Kingdom can be said to have been involved, but we have tried to promote peaceful solutions.
	Real issues arise from the role of British and European companies in contributing to the promotion and extension of conflict by dealing in conflict goods. When the Committee took evidence, there was an exchange between the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and the chairman of Afrimex. The hon. Lady asked him whether he was aware of the OECD guidelines after the UN had identified his company. He said no. The hon. Lady asked if he had referred to the DTI and again he said no. She then asked whether the DTI had ever contacted him, and again he said no. That tells us that the DTI is not at one with the DFID in ensuring that British companies are squeaky clean in the engagement in and possible contribution to conflicts. We need to resolve conflict resources, we need higher standards and we need to stamp out corruption inside and outside the countries involved if we are to ensure that we are not party to promoting or encouraging conflict in the future. Those are issues that need to be thoroughly debated.

Quentin Davies: I do not want to say a word against the Secretary of State, for whom I entirely share the esteem already expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). The right hon. Gentleman made an excellent speech, but it is clear that he did not succeed in persuading his colleagues, including the Leader of the House, of the importance of this debate. To allocate only an hour and three quartersthat is, less than an hour for all the Back-Bench speechesis nothing less than contemptuous of the subject.
	I am left with trying to make three points in about four minutes. First, international development is a very peculiar subject. It is the only one that we discuss in the House where we target inputsin no other field would we dream about targeting 0.7 per cent. of our GDP. It is a very un-businesslike approach, although I accept that we are so committed to it, psychologically and politically, that we cannot go back on it. However, we should not deceive ourselves into believing that spending more money will automatically achieve progress in poverty reduction.
	In fact, the connection between spending money or targeting inputs and achieving outputs is very uncertain. Sometimes, the connection may be an inverse one. The western world has spent something like $2.3 trillion on aid in the past 50 years, with very inadequate outcomes. For about 20 years, the highest per-capita recipient was Tanzania under Nyere, but per capita income there fell in that time. That tells us that we must be quite sceptical.
	Secondly, that need for scepticism means that we must be careful that aid is properly spent. We must ensure that it does not displace expenditure by recipient Governments away from health or education programmes and on to arms or greater bureaucracy. We must be sure that Governments do not pursue the sort of perverse and damaging economic policies, such as excessive taxation or excessive and perverse regulation, that only undermine entrepreneurship. We must foster a climate that encourages foreign investment, and make sure that corruption is controlled and punished appropriately.
	The Government are in a mess in respect of the whole question of conditionality. They seem to accept it in areas such as human rights and governance, but not in economic policies. I prefer the word partnership to conditionality, for obvious psychological reasons, but it is essential that there be a dialogue. Let us be clear: there is no point in spending our taxpayers' money if its effect is counteracted by the recipient state adopting unfortunate and inappropriate policies.
	We should not run away from conditionality. In that context, I am worried about the Secretary of State's argument with the World Bank. It is far from clear to me that the conditionality that the World Bank is imposing is unreasonable. If it is imposing sensible conditionality on the economic policies pursued by donee countries, we should support it.
	Thirdly, precisely because conditionality is important, we cannot achieve our purposes in poverty reduction and development spending in general alone. It is crazy to think that there can be 25 or 30 bilateral dialogues between 25 or 30 separate donors and a recipient country. That is hopeless. There cannot be 25 or 30 different sets of monitoring arrangements or sets of donors demanding several days a year with key Ministers and officials in the partner or recipient country. The officials and Ministers would not have time to do anything other than meet donors. We therefore need to make sure that we co-ordinate much more effectively and systematically than we have done so far. We have done so sometimes, in an ad hoc way. In some countries we co-ordinate effectively with other donors. We should make it a rulewe can do this within the European Unionthat we develop one set of policies and have one dialogue so that we are not sending different signals to our EU partners or to the Commission. We should agree with them on the strategy for a country. We should then launch a co-ordinated single dialogue; we should agree with the donee country on common targets and approaches. We should set up a single monitoring procedure. It is much more difficult to do it outside the EU, but we should do it pragmatically where we can with the World Bank and other donors. The United States always want to do their own thing; I understand that. But we can co-ordinate. We should have formal protocols. The opportunity is there precisely because of the structure of the EU.
	I hope that the next time we discuss this subject we can give it the attention that it deserves. All the rhetoric about trying to help 2 billion people who are in desperate straits, which they certainly are, looks pretty empty if the House of Commons cannot even come up with two hours of time to debate the subject.

Mark Simmonds: I join others in complaining about the paucity not of the quality of debate but of the quantity. It has been far too short. It was, however, opened by two excellent speeches. The Secretary of State set out with great clarity the priorities of the White Paper and he was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), the shadow Secretary of State, who set out in an intelligent, committed and compelling speech why the Opposition welcome the White Paper, underpinned by an emphasis on good governance, capability, responsiveness and accountability.
	The White Paper correctly acknowledges the importance of structural reform, including the necessity to modernise the multilateral institutions, build individual country structures and develop absorptive capacity. It rightly considers methods and delivery mechanisms to focus resources on the alleviation of poverty, tackling humanitarian crises, preventing conflict and promoting peace, thereby ensuring security, incomes and public services. For the first time, the White Paper considered in detail strategies for mitigating and adapting to the threat that climate change could have on international development. We commend this ambitious focus.
	We welcome and support the continued high priority to be given to health, education, access to water and sanitation and prevention and cure of disease, which pose immediate threats to future development. Confronting those challenges must remain at the forefront of our efforts if we are to achieve the millennium development goals. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) said, good governance is not simply about democracy. Successful states require effective institutions such as an independent judiciary, a free media and strong and pluralistic civil societies. The evidence suggests that states which are accountable and responsive to their citizens are stronger and better placed to mitigate and respond to disasters, and significantly more likely to benefit from economic growth and attract foreign investment.
	It is essential that the international community work to tackle corruption. Corruption and growth are inversely related. While it remains less expensive to bribe a Government official to obtain a concession than to pay the full market price, limited progress will be made. The White Paper commits to a new quality of governance assessment, which must be given a wide remit. The current World Bank assessment of governance is weighted heavily on the degree to which a country has liberalised its economy, as opposed to, for example, whether the media are independent. We welcome the governance and transparency fund, which strengthens civil society and the media, as there is a direct correlation between countries with a free media and sustained economic growth.
	As the Secretary of State said, economic growth is the most effective way of alleviating poverty. It creates independence and ultimately promotes saving and investment, and contributes to the absorption of future economic shocks. The private sector creates growth and we welcome the White Paper's latent recognition of that fact.
	Governments in developing nations have a role in ensuring that the private sector has the optimum environment in which to flourish: low regulation, access to economic opportunity and competition. In addition, there must be conditions in which access to credit, micro-finance and property rights are secure. Developing nations have a role in providing macro-economic stability. They also have a role in the world trade system, in which they must be allowed fully to participate without being restricted by unfair trading rules, as many Members pointed out. In a modern interdependent global world, economic growth is impossible without access to global markets and we are all disappointed that the Doha development round isto put it politelydeadlocked.
	We are also concerned that there is limited consideration in the White Paper of infrastructure development. Rightly, there is significant emphasis on providing services such as health, education and disease prevention, but we must not overlook other fundamental developmental challenges, such as building transport networks, communication capabilities and electrification in rural areas. That will enable regional trade and the expeditious delivery of medical supplies, and allow countries to develop a diverse and balanced economic base. They will then be able to graduate from exporting purely agricultural and other basic commodities to making value-added products.
	The real challenge for the developing world is to enable economic growth and wealth creation, which are the drivers of poverty alleviation, without causing environmental degradation. Although the problem of climate change may seem remote by comparison with poverty, disease and economic stagnation, it will most dramatically affect the poorest people, who currently rely on rain-fed agriculture for their livelihood and income. It will also have an impact on population movement, and create a significant increase in environmental refugees. It is worth looking at an expansion of greenhouse gas permits on an international market basis to cut emissions and promote spending on cleaner fuels and energies.
	DFID must ensure that its impacts are taken into account in every bilateral funding decision, by considering both the impact of its projects on climate change and how climate change affects its projects. The Opposition agree with most of the White Paper and acknowledge DFID's global reputation as a provider of development assistance. As a result of the Department's work, significant progress has been made in some countries. However, there must be a change in the fortunes of developing nations; they need the establishment of good governance and effective state organisations, investment in infrastructure, wider and deeper debt relief, adaptation to environmental changes, more robust disease prevention, increased access to public services, reform of the global trade routes, a strong and pluralist civil society and more effective conflict prevention, as well as reconstruction, macro-economic stability and secure property rights.
	The White Paper rightly acknowledges many of those challenges and it is essential that it is translated into effective and expeditious action. Ultimately, we must assist developing nations to progress from aid dependency, and that will require sustained economic growth and wealth creation, not just wealth redistribution.

Gareth Thomas: In light of the time, I will not, and I apologise for that.
	I join the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) in praising the contribution of Mohammed Yunis. Some 2 billion people still do not have access to credit, which is one of the factors that fuels the opium trade in Afghanistan. Britain's businesses and financial sector have a role to play in helping us to give people access to credit, and we are working with them on that issue.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) asked whether the desire to move from project to programme spend is driven by Gershon. I can reassure her that projects still have their place, as budget support is not always appropriate. We use a variety of aid methods, and we will continue to do so, but if we want to reach all the poor in a developing country, if we want all children to have access to primary schools, and if we want all pregnant women to have access to a skilled attendant, we have to build the Government capacity, and that is why budget support continues to be important.
	The hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), and the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) all raised the issue of climate change. I remind them of the commitment given by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor to push the World Bank and other international financial institutions on the issue of an investment framework. We hope that that will galvanise some $20 billion in investment in low-carbon technologies. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford asked about the contribution of regional development banks, and I hope that she is reassured to hear of the work that President Kuroda of the Asian Development Bank is doing on that issue.
	I recognise that our Department needs to do more work on climate change. In my evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, I committed the Department to recruit additional staff to work on climate change. I hope that hon. Members accept that that process is under way. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford raised specific concerns about our commitment to women. Most recently, on a visit to Pakistan, we released 90 million to help to improve access to good maternity services. We have taken the lead on pushing the plight of women affected by HIV and AIDS on to the international agenda. At the recent UN high level meeting, we pushed for a bold political declaration that ensured a commitment to protecting women's rights. As she recognised, we are in the process of developing a new gender action plan, which will set the agenda for strengthened work on gender equality. I have taken on board her point about the need to reflect those concerns, and the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield about the need
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Tom Levitt: Part of my political credo is that technology should be man's slave, and not his master. Therefore, I welcome the introduction of satellite navigation in principle, even though I have not yet got it and have never used it. Four million drivers in this country use it already and satellite navigation is fitted as standard in one in every five cars. Half of all motorists have planned routes using internet mapping, which is a closely associated technology. We have seen a commodity grow from an expensive gimmick for the few to a more affordable must-have for the many in little more than a few monthshigh street stores have already noticed that Christmas is coming.
	The aims of satellite navigation are worthy: simple navigation with updated mapping information; onscreen mapping that is not too intrusive or dangerous; avoiding hazards or congestion, thus saving time and fuel; and even, perhaps, someone to talk with on long journeys. If only it were that simple.
	Millers Dale is a quiet village on the southern border of my constituency. Through it runs a narrow road in a steep-sided valley under a tall bridge carrying a former railway line. It is a poorly lit stretch of road, with no pavement underneath the bridge. It is bad enough for children to navigate that road on foot in the dark after the school bus has dropped them off, but the situation has got more frightening than ever recently and has become more dangerous since the number of HGVs using the roadthe A6049has increased considerably.
	Why has that happened? Long-distance lorry drivers, perhaps from eastern Europe, who are not familiar with the geography of Britain might find themselves making a delivery in Liverpool or Manchester. If they seek the quickest route back to the southbound M1, the satellite navigation system will direct them through Millers Dale. That does not make any sense, but someone who does not know any better than to follow its advice will take that route.
	In Brookbottom, on the western border of High Peak, a coach load of 40 tourists from London spent more time than they had planned enjoying the Peak district after their coach became wedged on a tight bend. A tanker lorry did something similar a week earlier. Typical of satellite navigation's idiosyncrasies is to take people down short cuts that turn out to be anything but. Coming west on the A624 from Chesterfield, heading for Stockport or Manchester via the A6, one reaches the picturesque village of Sparrowpit, where a pub called the Wanted Inn perches on a hairpin bend. Satellite navigation tells drivers that if they turn right immediately behind the pub and then first left, there is a straight road over to the A6, which cuts off a corner and saves 3 or 4 miles. It is up a short hill and then down a very long one. There is a great view of Manchester from the top, for those who like that sort of thing. At the bottom of the hill, however, around Blackbrook, there are a couple of hairpin bends that can only be described as mean. Woe betide the articulated lorry that tries to take those blind bends at any speedas some have, aided and abetted, no doubt, by the helpful person who removed the weight restrictions signs from the Sparrowpit end of the road.
	Once drivers have navigated that road, they have another problem, according to my constituent, Guy Martin. His TomTom satellite navigation system apparently shows the A6 as a single carriagewayin effect directing drivers the wrong way up a lane of a dual carriageway. Mr. Martin complained to TomTom when his device told him that its memory was full and he could not upgrade the information that it carried. He wrote to the local press about it. His letter in the local paper said:
	I complained to Tom but after several weeks had no reply.
	Now, being slagged off in the local press is nothing new to me, except that I had seen Mr. Martin's original e-mail, which he kindly copied me into. He actually wrote:
	I complained to Tom Tom,
	but a helpful sub-editor removed the duplicated word and thus committed a calumny against me. I am delighted to report that the following week's letters page contained both a correction from Mr. Martin and grovelling apology from the paper's editor for criticising my status as a Member of the House so unjustly. I hope that TomTom replied in due course.
	No discussion of satellite navigation would be complete without a reference to Swansea City's football ground, the Liberty stadium. Apparently, satellite navigation systems still direct people to the club's former ground, the Vetch, which it has not used since the end of last season. A visiting team from Bradford nearly missed a game recently due to delays caused by incorrect data on the satellite navigation system. It is said that the police trawl Swansea every Saturday lunchtime looking for lost and literally misguided motorists in search of a football ground.
	Stories about satellite navigation have acquired the status of urban myths, but it is difficult to believe that they are not all trueafter all, they have been in the newspapers. There have been stories about vehicles being directed down steps at Sheppards Barton, or the wrong way down one-way streets in Glasgow. Thirty pensioners were stuck for four hours when their coach became caught between the grassy banks of a lane in Forest of Dean. Signs showing weight restrictions, and even no-through roads, are being flouted by the score in Somerset, Cornwall and Devon more often than ever. Cars have courted disaster when attempting to ford the River Avon at Luckington, or when being directed to the edge of a 100 ft cliff in north Yorkshire. All those stories have appeared in the national or regional press in the past two weeks.
	It is easy to blame satellite navigation for the problem, but weight restriction signs exist to guide motorists, and being in possession of satellite navigation gives them no excuse to ignore such a sign. No one tells a motorist to ford a stream that is too deep, or to risk driving a car off a cliff edge. Most pedestrianised streets are pretty well marked. However, as the Royal Automobile Club said in the 15 October edition of  Scotland on Sunday:
	Just because a computer tells you to drive into a ditch or whatever, it doesn't mean you have to do it.
	So, what is all the fuss about? Frankly, I am not too worried about what happens to cars, even though research shows that a fifth of all young drivers no longer carry a road atlas and that two thirds of them do not know the significance of a road being marked in redit is an A-roadon a map. However, lorries can do an awful lot of damage even at slow speeds, whether that is to a bridge in Bodmin, or to garden walls in Shaftsbury. Such damage is also testified by the experience of Mr. Isherwood of Chapel Milton, which is in my constituency.
	Mr. Isherwood's case relates to lorries travelling along the A624 from Glossop without realising that there is a height limit under the railway bridge outside his house. Rather than getting stuck under the bridge, the lorries try to turn round and go back to the previous junction at Hayfield, which is some three miles back, but there is simply no room on the road for them to do so. Cars in the car park of the Crown and Mitre pub and Mr. Isherwood's garden wall have thus been the frequent victims of lorries that have tried to carry out multi-point turns. Ah, but, the industry will say, height limits are not our responsibility. That is my point.
	I wrote to the Department for Transport some weeks ago to ask what it was going to do about misleading, out-of-date and unhelpful data being incorporated into, or downloaded on to, satellite navigation systems in vehicles. The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who will reply to the debate, acknowledged that there was a problem, but said at that time that voluntary regulation by the industry was the answer. That was at a time when even the AA and the RACthose champions of the deregulation of drivingwere calling for the recognition of possible hazards caused by satellite navigation.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend, however, because I read in the 15 October edition of  Scotland on Sunday that the Department has set up a review because:
	As the use of satellite navigation becomes more common, there is a need to ensure that devices do not pose a safety risk through driver distraction. It is also necessary to ensure that their routing strategies do not encourage the use of 'rat-runs' or give ill-advised or illegal instructions to the user.
	I hope that that will be achieved by licensing the production and sale of satellite navigation equipment.
	Several satellite navigation systems offer the driver the option of telling him or herI suspect that it is mostly himthe location of speed cameras, and we can debate whether that is a justifiable purpose of satellite navigation. In the future, we might expect satellite navigation to tell us where congestion can be found and how to avoid it, where roadworks are to be found, and where congestion charging is in place. In the more distant future, it might tell us the different rates of road pricing that will apply in any given area. Yet I think I am right in saying that at present no publicly available satellite navigation system can tell us what weight, height and width limits apply to any particular road. Even the Ordnance Survey, whose data are the source of much satellite navigation information, has only just started to collate information about the width, weight and height restrictions on 110,000 of our bridgesthere are probably more. The Ordnance Survey spokesman said very sensibly in the  Birmingham Mail just two weeks ago:
	A single bridge strike can lead to a loss of business and higher insurance premiums as well as the costs of the repair. Other drivers can also be affected if surrounding roads have to be closed.
	Height and width restrictions on roads are intended to protect structures, vehicles, drivers and passengers. Only a fool would not heed the advice that is given on these matters. Weight limits exist, by and large, for the same reason, but they are also used as a tool for traffic management by local authorities to improve the quality of life in certain communities.

David Heath: I am envious of the hon. Gentleman for getting the debate, as I was trying for one on the same subject. May I vouch for one of his examples? Sheppards Barton is a mediaeval cobbled street ending in a flight of steps next to my office in Frome, and a very surprised driver found himself delivering coffee down there the other day. The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the problems that we see in my constituency involves heavy lorries, often with overseas drivers. They unload at Poole and look for a north-south route, but one is not obviously available. They rely on satnav, which takes them along a road like the A357 through Blackmoor Vale and through delightful villages like Henstridge and Templecombe, which cannot take heavy vehicles. Do we not need a route hierarchy built into the geography of the satnav system, so that drivers are advised of sensible routes and communities are relieved of heavy traffic?

Stephen Ladyman: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in that respect. The point that I am making is simply that satellite navigation might give us an opportunity to improve people's routing, and to do things that we might not have been able to do in the past when we had the old, paper-based sort of routing.
	I must confess that I have no sense of direction, so the satellite navigation system in my car is invaluable, and it also steers me past traffic jams, which often saves me a great deal of time when I am travelling to Parliament on Monday mornings. On the other hand, it recently sent me down a road that turned into a cart track, where I was up to my wheel arches in mud. So, like many people, I see both the strengths and the weaknesses of satellite navigation systems.
	There are different kinds of in-vehicle electronic routing systems. Some of them simply provide routing advice based on digitally mapped roads, and I suspect that many of the problems that my hon. Friend has detailed have come about as a result of those systems. Others, which are known as dynamic route guidance systems, provide routing instructions according to real-time prevailing traffic and road conditions. Those types of systems are automatically updated with the latest information available to the company that provides the service, including on roadworks and the location of traffic jams. Some systems are integral to vehicles; others are portable devices that can be moved from vehicle to vehicle. Well-designed route guidance systems have the potential to reduce congestion and improve safety on the road. For example, drivers can listen to guidance without taking their eyes off the road. There is no need for them to look at their maps while moving, or to cause congestion by stopping to study their maps.
	The software used to determine a given route is based on a hierarchy of roads, with motorways and dual carriageways favoured over slower, smaller, and generally local and residential roads. The route selected should always use principal roads, except at the start and end of a journey, where that might not be an option. That approach would normally avoid unsuitable routing, for example along single-track roads. However, it is possible that dynamic route guidance systems would suggest such a route as a diversion, in the event of problems on motorways and A-roads. Non-dynamic systems would not normally suggest unsuitable roads, provided that the area required is served by motorways and A-roads.
	However, we are aware of concerns about vehicles, especially large or heavy vehicles, being guided on to unsuitable roadsmy hon. Friend has given many examples of why we should be so concernedand about the safety and traffic problems that can arise. We have legislation on in-vehicle information systems, including a licensing regime for some devices, but it dates back to 1989 and 1990. Since then, technology has surged ahead at great speed and may well have overtaken that legislation. We have few hard statistics to illustrate the scale of the problems that might be arising, so the Department for Transport carried out a brief survey of local authorities earlier this year. Analysis of the responses showed that a majority of the authorities that replied had received no complaints about inappropriate routing within the last 12 months. However, all the complaints that had been received related to heavy vehicles, and the local authorities' view was that the number of reported incidents is rising, which could lead to problems in future.
	The survey highlighted examples of vehicles being directed to local roads with access restrictions of some kindsuch as weight, height or width limitsand heavy vehicles, especially foreign vehicles, being diverted from motorways on to inappropriate local roads. Many of the reported problems arise from satellite navigation systems designed for cars being used in trucks. Clearly, this is unwise. Heavy vehicles might be directed along a route that, although entirely suitable for a car, is inappropriate for a lorry. Local highway and traffic authorities do of course have the ability to make traffic regulation orders and to place traffic signs to restrict access on the part of some or all types of vehicles. Orders can include limits on vehicle weights, widths and lengths. Unsuitable roads, bridges and tunnels can therefore be made off limits to inappropriate vehicles by means of orders and signs.
	It is obviously essential for drivers of heavy vehicles always to act with common sense, and to look at, and take action on, all relevant road signs. But if truck drivers follow a guidance system designed for a car slavishly without paying proper attention, they might breach these orders. I am aware that satellite navigation systems are coming on to the market that are aimed specifically at heavy vehicles and trucks. Although they have yet to be tested by the Department, one would hope that they will avoid some of these errors. But such drivers are required to ensure that they are using a system that is designed for their vehicle, and not for a car.
	While the map used by a navigation device should be up to date, it remains the case that whatever system is usedbe it cutting-edge electronic gadgetry with all the bells and whistles of dynamic route guidance, or a simple paper road mapdrivers are responsible for ensuring that their driving decisions are legal and appropriate. Drivers cannot blame their satellite navigation systems for their failure to drive lawfully. They certainly cannot blame their systems if they drive the wrong way down a one-way street, because there are clear signs at the entrances to all such streets showing that it is not appropriate to enter at that point.
	The police and courts can take a range of appropriate enforcement actions. For example, the offence of failure to comply with a traffic sign can be punished with a fine, points on a driver's licence, or even discretionary disqualification. Car drivers, too, could conceivably breach traffic regulation orders or other road traffic requirements, were they to follow route guidance without taking account of road signs and their own common sense. We have heard some anecdotal evidence of that happening, but it appears from the results of the local authority survey that problems with trucks are more common.
	System and map providers are aware of the problem of heavy vehicles using car route guidance. Some heavy vehicle-specific systems, which include information such as bridge heights and width and weight restrictions, are now available on the continent. I believe that a system with some of these features has recently come on to the UK market; I have no doubt that others will follow.
	I am sure that the market will deliver a solution to this problem in time, and I do not want to interfere in that market without good reason. But I do take very seriously the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, and the Department for Transport has just launched a full public consultation on route guidance systems. This is an initial consultation exercise and, depending on our findings, it might be followed by a full statutory consultation on possible changes to the current licensing regime.
	The consultation has two aims. First, we want to ensureby legislation, self- regulation or some other optionthat satellite navigation and other route guidance systems are safe for drivers and other road users. For example, we need to ensure that these systems do not cause serious distraction to drivers. Secondly, we want to ensure that the guidance offered by such systems avoids the problems of inappropriate routing. Our wider approach to better regulation suggests that a deregulatory approach would be best, perhaps in association with a self-certification process, but I have an open mind and I want to hear all good ideas. I assure my hon. Friend that I am not in any way prejudging the outcome of the consultation.
	Our consultation began on 9 October, to coincide with the opening of the intelligent transport systems world congress, which this year was hosted in London and at which I saw plenty of innovation. The consultation ends on 9 January. We have sent consultation papers to a large number of individuals and organisations, and they are available on the Department's website. We are inviting all stakeholders' views on the best way forward. I will ensure that the views that hon. Members expressed today are fed into the consultation process and that today's  Hansard is made available to the consultation team.